Alain,


> Are we mainly concerned with second level domain names? as trademarked and/=
> or notorious gTLD names are dealt with: if you want to protect a valuable r=
> esource such as a name - usually trademarked (say Nobel Prize or Honda or L=
> ouis Vuitton or Apple or Red Cross) then the trademark holding body must ap=
> ply for a corresponding gTLD, which will be used for primary purposes say j=
> [log in to unmask] However, notoriety of a given name may=
>  not always match the financial robustness needed to apply for a gTLD, but =
> that will be the exception, no? I'm not sure though. Is gTLD aiming at a si=
> ngle root or a family of similar roots (hence the suggestion to stick to st=
> rict international treaties nomenclature which I find interesting but insuf=
> ficient)? so what happens to related names such as vuitton or vuitton bags =
> or luis vutton... ICANN cannot substitute for INTA, WIPO, etc... it must on=
> ly respect INTA, WIPO, etc... rules and regulations.

It appears to me that the ICRC and the IOC are asking for two things and 
conflating them as they have done complicates the issues and we should 
separate them out in our discussions and any presentations to the GNSO or the 
ICANN Board.

1. ICRC and IOC have requested that relevant new gTLDs including their marks 
be included on a reserved list and that no one apart from them be allowed to 
run them.

Summary: most of us appear to dislike this but there is some (perhaps a 
majority) acceptance that it may be politic to allow the ICRC's marks as 
specified in the relevant international treaties to be put on the reserved 
list, but that no "similarity" clause be allowed - only the exact words in 
the international treaties. The IOC appears tohave no relevant mark in the 
alphabetic string space alone (only in the graphic mark or the graphic mark 
and the string) and thus there appears to be a large majority in favour of 
NCSG, or perhaps only NCUC, opposing the claim by the IOC.


2. ICRC and IOC have requested that all applicants for other new gTLDs must 
agree to place their marks on reserved lists which they operate.

There appears to be little (though some) support on this list for this being 
allowed. For example the free speech implications of a .sucks gTLD banning 
ICRC.sucks for a criticism site of the ICRC (no matter how many of us may 
feel about the ICRC being a "saintly" organisation preventing criticism from 
being easily found an identified is not justifiable for many of us).


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/