Thanks Nicolas - that is helpful. There is a new option 7 which will be available for circulation shortly. I am not sure there is any appetite among the rest of the working group for further ideas, but we can only try.
Key issues for the working group next are: whether there is rough consensus on a single option and b) whether only one option should be presented to the GNSO and GAC or all options or a subset. There is a strong view from some participants that we should put just one option if there is rough consensus to do so (see Konstantinos's previous messages about trying to develop some options).
We'd appreciate any comments and guidance on that, too
Thanks
Joy
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 12:54 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
What about,
option 3 (i don't know where you guys find the 7th option in this discussion though, I only see 6 options with a lot of variants), but only for the second round of application.
Or your new option (below = designated names) with the possibility of IOC or RC, as applicable, to solely entertain the right to apply for these on the second round.
This would be set out in section 2.2.1.2.4, dealing definitively with section 2.2.1.2.3.
This would reflecting positively on our working with GAC requests and Board implementation, but would also recognize that neither case was properly made with regard earning a blanket reserved status of whatever type.
This would preserve everybody's cake and everyone could walk around with a full belly. Everyone except people that were hungry for a hidden agenda, of course.
Nicolas
On 2/22/2012 4:57 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> Thanks - I have this feedback from Greg Shatan who is participating in the working group:
> "I think this option doesn't work, because the Guidebook does not allow the IOC or the RCRC to apply for these names at the top level. That's how we ended up with the concept of "Modified Reserved Names" (which can be registered by the IOC or RCRC)."
> Comments?
> Joy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Nicolas Adam
> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 10:24 a.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
> at Top Level
>
> This course of action enjoys my support. Well thought, Joy!
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 22/02/2012 11:10 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>> I really like this Joy - especially since it adheres to the applicant guidebook and it does offer a certain level of protection for these marks that does not go beyond what international statutes and conventions are suggesting. I think that the task imposed on this group has been impossible and I truly not understand its real purpose considering that the current version of the applicant guidebook already provides for an additional protection for these marks. I find you suggestion as seeking to reconcile therefore what should be done and what is asked to be done.
>>
>> And, although I am the first to go with option number 1 and I have certainly communicated this and will continue to do so to the WG currently working on these issues, I think that this can be a workable alternative.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> KK
>>
>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>>
>> Senior Lecturer,
>> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM
>> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of
>> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building,
>> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
>> UK
>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-
>> R
>> egulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications:
>> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>> Website: www.komaitis.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Τρίτη, 21 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 11:50 μμ
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis
>> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
>> at Top Level
>>
>> Hi all - just returning to the options discussion again. I would like to propose a couple of other options to the working group.
>> My reason is that the current 7 options go from a simple rejection of the GAC proposal to more nuanced reserved names options. I believe more options are possible for responding constructively to the GAC (ok - leaving aside whether you think we should do that or not).
>> For example, the GNSO could recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to the GAC proposal positively by suggesting a supplementary list of designated names of those proffered by the GAC. Provided the supplementary names fall within the designated names in the guidebook this might be more comfortably construed as implementation – but others may feel quite differently about that.
>> Further, there may be an option for some joint working group with GAC on this, as GAC has proposed, that we could also explore rather than simply “outright rejection” or “reserved or modified reserved names” (I say that with no disrespect to all the work that has been done in developing these options). Thus, a new Option 1A or 1B might look like this:
>> Option 1A: Recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to the GAC proposal positively by proposing supplementing the list of designated names within those recommended by GAC in September 2011. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
>> a) Are designated names
>> b) Are not considered “reserved names”
>> c) Are implemented with a list of supplementary designated names as previously set out by the GAC
>> d) Designated names, including supplementary, are reviewed after the initial round, as provided in the Guidebook
>> e) This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross from bringing a legal rights objection elsewhere in the initial round in accordance with the Guidebook.
>> Option 1B: Option 1A and proposing a joint working group with GAC to
>> support the Designated Names Review after the initial round, as
>> provided in the Guidebook
>>
>> Interested in your thoughts - and these are just my personal views as
>> which I would offer to the working group, not on behalf of NCUC
>>
>> Joy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Marc Perkel
>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012 7:08 a.m.
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
>> at Top Level
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On 2/20/2012 9:55 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> I agree with you, Konstantinos. These groups have not attempted to answer the question about how their existing protections are inadequate, which should be a threshold question that any responsible policy making body (GNSO?) would ask of a group seeking special rights.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Joy - I am definitely in favour of the rejection of the
>>>> whole thing, which in reality is not rejection as the latest
>>>> version of the Guidebook does actually incorporate some provisions for these names.
>>>> So, even if we go for option 1, the Board has already granted
>>>> special privileges to these names - they really don't need more. As
>>>> you can see from the list there is some sort of 'pressure' for
>>>> option 7, which transforms these names into a reserved list
>>>> category. But, I have two problems with these proposals: a) the
>>>> group doesn't seem to understand that the protection for these
>>>> names is only for commercial use and this is something we should
>>>> insist on
>>>> - it reflects the Nairobi Treaty that they quote. And, secondly,
>>>> and more annoyingly, any such protections give these orgs power to
>>>> become arbiter of who gets a place on the Internet - commercial,
>>>> non commercial and communities. The idea that a Greek community
>>>> wishing to register the term Olympiad will have to request
>>>> permission from IOC gives me the chills :)
>>>>
>>>> KK
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>>>>
>>>> Senior Lecturer,
>>>> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM
>>>> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of
>>>> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building,
>>>> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
>>>> UK
>>>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>>>> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Nam
>>>> e
>>>> -
>>>> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications:
>>>> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>>>> Website: www.komaitis.org
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Δευτέρα, 20 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 2:28 πμ
>>>> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
>>>> Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> Hi Konstantinos - one follow up on this. I keep going first principles and the whole concept that it is inappropriate to talk of ownerships of a domain name (RFC 1591). My worry with giving the IOC and Red Cross this decision-making power (option 5 and 6) is that we are effectively creating a moderated space. I still think Option 1 is better (implement the guidebook as it is and if it is problematic, tell the Board so in a review of the first round of new gTLDs).
>>>> Or maybe we should suggest a new moderated TLD space: .gac
>>>>
>>>> Joy
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:36 p.m.
>>>> To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
>>>> Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Joy - the more I think about it the more I reject option 3 or any option for that matter that will require legitimate applicants (existing trademark owners, the Greek gov. etc) to ask for IOC's permission. What does this permission mean? Currently, in most of the cases, it comes with license fees. Does it mean that an applicant, even if they get permission by IOC, they will have to pay a license to do so?
>>>>
>>>> As there is a great possibility for IOC to charge for these 'permissions' -I am not sure how we can water this down. This is already an expensive process and 'permissions' have the tendency to come with 'costs', especially when we are talking about an entity that makes all its money through sponsorship deal and by taking advantage of the Olympic name.
>>>>
>>>> Originally, I found ridiculous the idea that legitimate rights' owners would have to ask for a permission to use a term that they lawfully hold; now, I find it both ridiculous and scary that they might even have to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> I could work with option 7 :)
>>>>
>>>> KK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>>>>
>>>> Senior Lecturer,
>>>> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM
>>>> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of
>>>> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building,
>>>> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
>>>> UK
>>>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>>>> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Nam
>>>> e
>>>> -
>>>> Regulat
>>>> ion-isbn9780415477765
>>>> Selected publications:
>>>> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>>>> Website: www.komaitis.org
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Τρίτη, 14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 2:28 πμ
>>>> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
>>>> Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> Hi KK and thanks for your mammoth efforts on this, especially as I missed the last call.
>>>> I remain convinced Option 1 is preferable - Option 3 is clearly a modification of existing policy and not a simple matter of "implementation".
>>>> If Option 3 requires some modification I would suggest and amendment making it clear that any string similarity review must be conducted in an impartial manner and therefore not by any party connected to the IOC or RC.
>>>> In relation to the other questions, I favour only applying the proposal to the languages set out in the GuideBook and also only in this round (it can be reviewed after the first round - we are, after all, in new territory as these discussions over the last 4 months show).
>>>> Perhaps, if there is no agreement there is an option 7: The
>>>> specific names are locked and no-one can have them ;) Joy
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>>> Of Konstantinos Komaitis
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2012 10:56 p.m.
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
>>>> Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> A quick update on what happened at last night's call concerning the IOC and the Red Cross protections.
>>>>
>>>> I communicated the position of the NCUC - mainly that an overwhelming majority of this group is against any sort of special protections (Option 1) for any of these marks, despite the fact that many members felt more sympathetic towards the Red Cross rather than the IOC. As expected, we were the only group that went for that option and there was a lot of discussion about that. I raised the point of the precedent this would set, a point that was shared by the Registry SG, only they felt that the GAC letter made it clear that no such precedent would be set. I disagreed. Both the IOC and the Red Cross have appeared to be pushing for Jeff's option number 3 - what Jeff termed as 'modified reserved names' ,which essentially means to elevate these two marks (and their variations) to the status that currently is enjoyed by ICANN's reserved names list, i.e the words 'example, 'ICANN' etc.
>>>>
>>>> It appears that the majority of the group will try to work out language for this option 3 and also push for more languages to be included in the list of the existing 8 languages that the AG currently suggests. and, also they would like to see this kind of protection extending beyond this round.
>>>>
>>>> So, where are we right now? no decision has been taken of course,
>>>> but NCUC is the only group totally against this kind of protection.
>>>> Alan Greenberg was there as well and he stated that the ALAC
>>>> position has not managed to reach a consensus but he sounded as if
>>>> he was also going for option 3. (not sure if he was speaking on
>>>> behalf of ALAC or in his personal capacity)
>>>>
>>>> For me option 3 is really problematic and needs to be watered down
>>>> significantly. Option 3 means, for instance, that if the Greek
>>>> Government wished to apply for .Olympiad (the location where it all
>>>> started - the
>>>> Olympics) they will have to get permission from the IOC. This is a
>>>> point I raised and Gregory S. Shatan, who is with the IPC said that
>>>> he thought it was highly unlikely for a small village of 7000
>>>> people to apply for a gTLD - a point which pissed me off so I
>>>> engaged in a quick history lesson about the Olympic games and where
>>>> they were originally born :)
>>>>
>>>> The other issue that was discussed was whether the recommendations of this group would have to be reviewed. This was a point that Alan, the IOC, the Red Cross and some others found to be quite burdensome and bureaucratic.
>>>> However, I made very clear that this group is asked to come up with interpretations of international law and create 'new rules' - and mistakes are inevitable. So, the discussion was left that it would be ideal if a review were to be conducted but this should not be mandatory. Again, I disagreed and I will insist on making it mandatory, just like we made it mandatory for the URS to be reviewed after a year.
>>>>
>>>> I would like this group to start thinking of other options rather than rejecting these protections. With or without NCUC, I think the group will come up with some recommendations. I know that we don't agree (and certainly I believe that this whole issue is going to backfire and neither of these entities should get special protection on the basis that there is no solid argument for this kind of protection) but I also think we need to engage if we wish to water down any of the proposals that come out of this group.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward for your input on this.
>>>>
>>>> KK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>>>>
>>>> Senior Lecturer,
>>>> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM
>>>> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of
>>>> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building,
>>>> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
>>>> UK
>>>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>>>> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Nam
>>>> e
>>>> -
>>>> Regulat
>>>> ion-isbn9780415477765
>>>> Selected publications:
>>>> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>>>> Website: www.komaitis.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>>> Of Konstantinos Komaitis
>>>> Sent: Κυριακή, 5 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 10:35 πμ
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of
>>>> IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> This has been a great discussion and thank you all for your contributions.
>>>> Great points have been raised by all of you and, in particular, I think that the most crucial one is the kind of precedent this whole process will set, both from an institutional and substantive point of view. Both issues have been raised by myself and others, but the majority doesn't seem to think this as a problem either due to the fact that they are focused on this issue alone or because they don't see the GAC involvement as a 'tangible' threat to multistakeholder governance.
>>>>
>>>> I will convey that the majority (NCUC) of this group is against any special treatment - my fear is, that we - NCUC - will be the only group going towards this. So, the question becomes: if consensus is achieved towards some sort of protection (which I suspect it will), do we engage in trying to water down these protections or not?
>>>>
>>>> @Evan: I think NCUC (and certainly myself) would like to see an ALAC and NCUC collaboration on this front. I think that a joint statement might be of value to begin with and we can put this as an agenda item when we meet in Costa Rica.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> KK
>>>>
>>>> From: Dan Krimm<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Reply-To: Dan
>>>> Krimm<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:02:06 +0000
>>>> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> >
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of
>>>> IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
>>>>
>>>> At 9:38 AM +0100 2/4/12, William Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So returning to KK's original message, I am for Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal, with an objection on process and precedent grounds complimenting the substantive case.
>>>>
>>>> I've not been counting, but this seems consistent with a clear majority of views expressed here to date.
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If there is interest in joint NC / AtLarge pushback I'll certainly help advance the idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that NCUC would be willing to pursue this. Anyone disagree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I concur with both of these.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> PS: Is it worth expressing a "second choice" in the case that Option 1 is rejected by the policy group? Anybody for full ranked-choice voting here?
>>>>
>>>> Not to confuse things... ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>>>
|
