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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

I with Jim on this one.
 
j. scott evans - senior legal director,  head of global brand, domains & 
copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx




________________________________
 From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jim Bikoff 
<jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>; "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 
David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>; Kiran Malancharuvil 
<kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution
 

We did, and it does.

Perhaps this demonstrates why Jim's amendment IS necessary, even if it is clear 
when looking at the entire resolution that the proposals relate only to the top 
level.

Greg 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:18 PM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Jim Bikoff; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; David 
Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

I thought we already decoupled them and that the current recommendations only 
apply to the top level.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:15 PM
> To: Jim Bikoff; Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Konstantinos Komaitis; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx; David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
> Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1