RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps not, but would you object to it?

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Jim Bikoff; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Chuck Gomes; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; David Heasley; Kiran 
Malancharuvil
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

I don't think Jim's addition is necessary. These recommendations are for the 
top level name in any case.

Thanks

KK

From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:06:36 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Konstantinos 
Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Gregory 
Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, David Heasley 
<dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>, Kiran Malancharuvil 
<kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

Jeff, we and the Red Cross only agreed to the limitation for the top level. We 
expect to review languages for the second level with all of the other second 
level issues. Maybe you should say "The Drafting Team recommends that at the 
top level of this initial round,..."

Jim

James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

My gut is that we should take all subjectivity out of it and basically just 
state:
The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected  in 
multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in languages used on 
the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have 
provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive. The Drafting Team 
recommends that for this initial round, the list of languages currently 
provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient.
This is more objective and should not lead to any debate Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in 
this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named 
above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and 
any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:47 PM
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Jim Bikoff; Neuman, Jeff; Gregory Shatan; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution My first reaction is 
that Konstantinos suggestion is reasonable.  Do any of you disagree?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:40 PM
To: Jim Bikoff; Jeff Neuman; Gregory Shatan; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution Thank you very much 
for the clarification Jim. We should, however, identify a way where any 
addition of new languages beyond this illustrative list should be done in a way 
that is not arbitrary. I am not certain how this can be achieved, but my point 
is to prevent the addition of languages without having a mechanism where a)the 
need to add the additional language is verified and, b) the addition is part of 
a clear and unambiguous  justification of why the terms should be protected 
because, especially under national laws.
Thanks
Konstantinos
From: Jim Bikoff 
<jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:22:20 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Gregory Shatan 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: David Heasley 
<dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>,
Kiran Malancharuvil
<kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution All, Proposal 2 would now 
read as follows:
The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in 
multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in languages used on 
the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have 
provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive."
The Drafting Team agrees that the list of languages currently provided in 
Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are illustrative and 
representative.
Other illustrative and representative languages can be added to the list later, 
to cover the second level and later application rounds.
Jim Bikoff
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; Neuman, Jeff; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-iocrc- 
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jim Bikoff; 
shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx><mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>;
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx><mailto:christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution Is the appropriate 
change:
1.  To remove the last sentence of Proposal 2 2.  To remove all of Proposal 2 
(referring to as many languages as feasible), or 3.  To edit Proposal 2 to 
support the utilization only of the languages set forth in the AGB?
Leaving the rest of Proposal 2 doesn't seem to make sense to me, since it is at 
odds with the proposed change below.  Thus, I would suggest the amendment 
should be either 2 or 3 above.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group
IP | Technology | Media
ReedSmithLLP
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275| Phone
917.816.6428| Mobile
212.521.5450| Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>
pdc1