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). > >