[ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

Thu Feb 16 12:52:23 UTC 2012

Dear All,
An update on the IOC/RC Working Group.  Up till now I have received no comment from anybody in the ISPCP Constituency.
The next meeting is programmed for the 22nd, next week.
Best regards,

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CCEC99.1120B790]

Ing. Osvaldo Novoa
Sub Gerente General
R.I.I.C.
ANTEL
Tel: +598 2928 6444
E-mail: onovoa at antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa at antel.com.uy>

________________________________
De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck
Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Febrero de 2012 10:06 a.m.
Para: Alan Greenberg; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

I agree with Alan.  I see no harm in allowing the application to make their case and there could be value added.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:58 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

Jeff, I think this is pretty much what we discussed.

However, I would like to again make the case for a bit more under c. I belive that demonstrating rights to the string is a part of what the applicant should be able to do. But I also strongly believe that they should be given the opportunity to explain why they believe that the new TLD will not be confusingly similar to one of the protected strings. In the call, there was reference to this being a difficult thing to determine, and that it is subjective, and I agree to both. But the rejection of a string under the String Similarity Review is just that - subjective and a judgement call. That call will ultimately be made by the review panel. All the trademark rights in the world will not change their mind if they feel there is a strong expectation of user confusion, but the applicant SHOULD be given an opportunity to explain why they do not think that is the case. What they say can then be considered by the review panel in their final deliberation.

Alan

At 15/02/2012 11:41 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
All,

As a result of the call, I am trying to sum up what I believe option 7 is for Question 1 (see below), so that we can get feedback from our respective groups.  Can you please forward to me an comments on this as to whether this matches your understanding of what was discussed?

Thanks.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

*        Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning:
a)      The names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
b)      Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.
c)       Unlike other applied for gTLDs, however, the process would not end here.  Applicants for these strings, or those strings found to be similar through the String Similarity Review will have the opportunity in an "extended evaluation" to demonstrate that they have rights or legitimate interests to the strings they are seeking.
-          This could be in the form of a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable; or
-          A demonstration of trademark rights in the strings
-          Other factors?
d)  This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross from bringing a legal rights objection if they disagree with the "determination of rights or legitimate interests".

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: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:04 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

All,

Here is my proposed Agenda for the call on Wednesday.  Please let me know if you want to add anything else.

I.                    Schedule (including Costa Rica sessions)
II.                  Recap of Last Call
III.                Feedback from Team/Constituencies/SGs/ACs on Top-Level Options
IV.                Next Steps / Prep for GNSO Call & Possible Status call with GAC

I am a little disappointed by the lack of e-mails in the last two weeks on the questions presented, so please come to the meeting ready to contribute.

Thanks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Question 1.  How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round

GAC Proposal
At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review.  Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled "Strings Ineligible for Registration" and would not invoke String Similarity Review.

*        Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal.  This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a)       Are not considered "Reserved Names"
b)      Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.

*        Option 2:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as "reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2.  This means that:
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
b)  applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)        Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.

*        Option 3:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning:
a)      The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
b)      applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)       Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.

*        Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.
*        Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.

*        Option 5a:  Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable.

*        Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.

*        Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.

*        Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.

Question 2.  Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3?  If yes, which additional languages?
a)      Option 1:  No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook
b)      Option 2:  Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in "multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet."
c)       Option 3:  Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages.

Question 3.  Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?

a)       Option 1:  Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
b)      Option 2:   No, it should only apply to this current round.
c)       Option 3:  It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds.  We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>   / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

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.

________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20120216/ed9be83b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2001 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20120216/ed9be83b/image001.jpg>