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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It might be helpful if the IOC and RCRC reps talked with the GAC reps regarding 
the decision they made yesterday about languages.

Chuck


From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 05:51 PM
To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; Joy Liddicoat <joy@xxxxxxx>; 
Hughes, Debra Y. <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kiran Malancharuvil <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>; shankins@xxxxxxxx <shankins@xxxxxxxx>; 
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx <christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution

I think we have moved beyond this list and I generally support the revised 
Proposal 2 as recently circulated.  Since the GAC suggested all the languages 
on the Internet, I think we need to respond to that proposal, one way or the 
other.  Failing to respond just leaves the GAC hanging....  Proposal 2 resolves 
that.

Greg

________________________________
From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:49 PM
To: Joy Liddicoat; Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Hughes, Debra Y.'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 
'Kiran Malancharuvil'; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Jim Bikoff'; shankins@xxxxxxxx; christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution

I disagree.

j. scott evans - senior legal director,  head of global brand, domains & 
copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx


________________________________
From: Joy Liddicoat <joy@xxxxxxx>
To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Hughes, Debra Y.'" 
<Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'Kiran 
Malancharuvil' <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Jim Bikoff' <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>; shankins@xxxxxxxx; 
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution

I actually think option 2 is a good idea, thanks Greg.
Joy

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012 7:10 a.m.
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; Neuman, Jeff; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jim Bikoff; shankins@xxxxxxxx; 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>

________________________________
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 Hughes, Debra Y.
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:04 PM
To: '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: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution
Jeff,
The email was sent to the Drafting team email list 
(gnso-iocrc-dt.org<http://gnso-iocrc-dt.org>).  Is there another list?
Debbie


Debra Y. Hughes
Senior Counsel

American Red Cross
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.303.5356 (p)
202.303.0143 (f)
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

From: Neuman, Jeff 
[mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:55 PM
To: Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jim Bikoff; Hughes, Debra Y.; shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>; 
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Languge Issue Solution

Thanks for this.  Can I ask that you please send this to the full drafting team 
list so we can amend the motion?

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.


From: Kiran Malancharuvil 
[mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:12 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jim Bikoff; 
debra.hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:debra.hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>; 
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Languge Issue Solution
Importance: High

Dear Jeff and all:

The RCRC and IOC representatives met this afternoon as requested, to discuss 
the languages to be included for the String Similarity Review on the top-level 
and for the first round only.

The RCRC and IOC have agreed to limit the languages submitted for String 
Similarity Review on the top-level and for the first round to those set forth 
in the Applicant Guidebook in Section 2.2.1.2.3.  The parties have decided to 
proceed this way in the spirit of cooperation and for purposes of expediency, 
understanding that the parties both assert that the list of languages as set 
forth in the Applicant Guidebook in Section 2.2.1.2.3 is only illustrative and 
the denominations have broader protections in other languages that may be 
asserted in future rounds and at the second level.  We hope that this spirit of 
cooperation will resolve the discussions that have been held on the languages 
issue and will help move this proposal forward to consensus.

Accordingly, as this list has been previously verified, we recommend that the 
last sentence of Recommendation 2 relating to vetting of the list be deleted.

Respectfully submitted,

Christophe Lanord, Debra Hughes, Jim Bikoff, Kiran Malancharuvil and Stephane 
Hankins


Kiran J. Malancharuvil
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.
Georgetown Place, Suite 120
1101 30th Street NW
Washington, DC 20016
(202) 944-3307 - Office
(619) 972-7810 - Mobile
kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>



* * *

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