Great summarizing and clarifying post. Thank you Andrew.

But I find that we are being led astray by this piece-meal request for 
comment.

Clearly, what ought to be NCSG's position, as far as i'm concern, is:

"tell me /the rule you want to use for doing what you want to do/, and 
we'll tell you if we support it or not".

We should not be led into arguing over the rule-implications of 
piece-meal compromise. We should ask for the rule to be specified.

I recall we were done this trick when we submitted our charter and it is 
only fair game that we return the favor. Oh, and it's also sensible.

Nicolas

On 10/12/2011 11:24 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> 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).
>
>