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

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we have to be clear that we decouple top and second level. There is no 
urgency to act now for the second level. This needs much more evaluation and 
discussion. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Jim Bikoff
Gesendet: Di 13.03.2012 22:06
An: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Konstantinos Komaitis; Gregory Shatan; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Betreff: 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

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <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
> 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] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:40 PM
>> To: Jim Bikoff; Jeff Neuman; Gregory Shatan; 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>>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:22:20 +0000
>> To: Jeff Neuman
>> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 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>>
>> Cc: David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>> <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>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> dt@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> 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:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jim Bikoff; shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>;
>> 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>
>> www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> >
>>
>> pdc1
>