Hi all – am sending the documents relating to this call today which was an informal meeting of GNSO Councillors and other interested persons to discuss the issue of the IOC and Red Cross domain names. The meeting was a preliminary one and agreed to:

·         Circulate the attached information to our respective stakeholder groups for comment

·         Have a follow up call (tentatively scheduled for Jan 11th)

·         Provide a short update at the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow to the effect that the meeting had taken place so that GAC can be kept advised of progress and likely timeframes for response

Your comments on the questions would of course be welcome, particularly whether this a policy issue or one of implementation of a Board decision. While there were different views on this it was agreed that further information was needed to answer that question and Jeff Neuman (Chair) agreed to follow that up.

It was agreed that others can join the meetings (and quite a few did so). There was some discussion of whether, if the IOC and Red Cross names would otherwise succeed in an objection process, there was any harm in putting variations of these in the reserved list or including as part of a string similarity review. No decisions were made, but some points of view were exchanged.

 

I will circulate the links to the transcript of the meeting once this becomes available. Comments and questions would be very welcome.

 

Regards

 

Joy

 

 

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 5:04 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on Wednesday

 

All,

 

In advance of the call, I am resending around the documents sent to us by the GAC on their proposal with respect to the handling of IOC and Red Cross domain names at both the top and second levels.   In addition, I have attached a list of questions we can choose to discuss.  

 

Overall Issue: 

a)      Do we believe this issue is one of implementation (as the GAC has interpreted), or is this an issue of policy?

b)      Should these marks be protected at all?  Pros vs. Cons?  (NOTE:  This item’s discussion can take up the entire call, but I do not want to dwell on this given the number of subjects.  What I would like to do is spend no more than 15 minutes on this subject listing the arguments for and against.  Of course we will allow anyone to submit comments via e-mail on this subject after the call for evaluation).  I am not trying to suppress any discussion on this, but given that we spent almost all of the Council discussions in Dakar on this question alone and did not have much time to discuss the other questions, I want us to be able to get on to the other questions.

 

Top Level Protection

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.

               

Questions:

a)       Should the reservation be permanent or just apply during the first round?

b)      Should terms in this round and beyond receive consideration during string similarity review?

c)       Should reservation in this round and beyond extend to additional languages?

 

Second Level Protections

With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the new gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved names. The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A attached to their proposal.    They recommend the identical terms be protected in the 6 UN languages with an “encouragement” to registries to provide additional languages.

 

Questions

a.       Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level in all new gTLDs?

b.      If so, what type of reserved name would this be?

                                                               i.      A “forbidden name” that can never be registered (not even by those organizations) – NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they want.

                                                             ii.      Like a 2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes.

                                                            iii.      Like a Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), provided, further, that Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.

c.       Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released:  What would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?

 

Any other questions or topics?


Thanks!

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / [log in to unmask]  / 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.