[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO PDP -- suggested text for recommendation language tweaks, and manually generated redline

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Wed Jun 20 11:59:58 UTC 2018

Hello Paul and George, thank you - staff is generating a redline of George's suggestions that we will send to the list today.

Best regards,
Mary & Steve

On 6/20/18, 07:23, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of paul at law.es> wrote:

    If u send me the original and your changed version (without your manual redlines etc but with formatting) i can generate a redline using the compare feature of word. 
    Paul Keating, Esq.
    > On Jun 20, 2018, at 2:25 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
    > Hi folks,
    > During the last call, Phil suggested a redline of proposed changes
    > would be desirable. I don't own software of my own that does this. I
    > also searched for online tools that do this, but couldn't find
    > anything suitable. But, I did attempt to create such "redline" text
    > manually, and it's attached as a PDP.
    > I started with Recommendation 2, since that was the 'easiest' (i.e.
    > adding 4 words, to restrict things definitively to "trademark and
    > service mark" rights).
    > For Recommendation 1, I reordered and rephrased the existing
    > recommendation slightly, for clarity. I also added the text that I
    > thought should be in a recommendation that no specific new DRP be
    > created for IGOs.
    > Since some would rather keep Recommendation 1 limited only to INGOs, I
    > then offered an alternative, namely adding it into Recommendation 3
    > instead.
    > Also, I'm not sure if folks noticed, but some text was deleted from
    > Recommendation 3, compared to what appeared in January 2017. I pointed
    > out phrases that we might want to put back, for clarity.
    > I also found a possible error in how Recommendation 3 was worded,
    > relative to the comparable text from January 2017. Back in January
    > 2017, there was some text after a semi-colon (i.e. a separate
    > thought), that somehow got merged now into the prior text, without any
    > semi-colon. So, it doesn't make sense anymore to me. This stuff was
    > non-controversial (i.e. the assignee, licensee, agent procedural
    > guidance), but it kind of got mixed up with other text that was after
    > the semi-colon.
    > Sincerely,
    > George Kirikos
    > 416-588-0266
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=hJ-L9eIBn18ORnnyD8mVISXIM8WF16Ly0sRVzMpjank&s=64NJear3oaMxJEy30dxNXPsI9BAFd_kPl-WMlF9zgmg&e=
    > <suggested-text-igo-pdp-20180619.pdf>
    > _______________________________________________
    > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
    > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
    > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
    Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
    Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org

More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list