Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished
Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------
This
communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on
the matters discussed.
Dear
all,
As you know, a policy
group has been created to discuss the GAC’s request for special protection of
the Olympic and Red Cross marks and their variations. The group came up with a
set of questions and possible options that will be discussing in next week’s
call. Please note that at this stage discussions are focusing only at the top
level and not the second.
Can I please ask for your
feedback on these possible recommendations? You all know where I stand on this
issue (especially with regards to the OLYMPIC mark) and I am very annoyed that
the Greek GAC rep is not with me on this L
Anyway, the next call is
scheduled for next Wednesday and Jeff, chairing the group, is asking for any
comments by Sunday. Apologies for sending this quite late.
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-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected
publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website:
www.komaitis.org
From:
[log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Πέμπτη, 26 Ιανουαρίου 2012 1:48
πμ
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt]
Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top
Level
All,
Thanks for the very productive session today during our
call. Given the feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and
options for protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top
level. On the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which
included the notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross
or a relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below). It
also occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an
appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are
found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of
non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority, but
still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a) and
6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on the
table.
As requested
during the call, these questions/options are being presented for your review and
discussion within your respective groups. Please provide any comments
and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February
5th. This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to
our next call on February 8th. Thank you very much in advance
for your consideration and time.
Question 1. How should the
Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application
Round
GAC Proposal
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.
·
Option
1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This
means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a)
Are not considered “Reserved Names”
b)
Applied for strings are not reviewed for
similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
· Option 2:
Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under
Section 2.2.1.2. This means that:
a) the names are not available as
gTLD strings to anyone; and
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed
during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to
those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified
as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)
Like other applied for gTLDs not
passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
· Option 3:
Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved
names” meaning:
a) The names are available as
gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
b)
applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the
String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in
Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too
similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)
Like other applied for gTLDs not passing
String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
· Option 4a – Same as
Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that
can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal
mechanism TBD.
·
Option
4b – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those
organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved
names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 5a:
Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as
gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of
non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement as applicable.
· Option 5b: Same as
Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from
a relevant government.
· Option 6a: Same as
Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that
can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal
mechanism TBD.
· Option 6b: Same as
Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can
demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal
mechanism TBD.
Question 2. Should the protections set forth in
Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in
Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages?
a)
Option 1: No, just the languages set
forth in the Applicant Guidebook
b) Option
2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “multiple
languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the
Internet.”
c) Option 3:
Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of
languages.
Question 3. Should the Protections in
Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?
a)
Option 1: Yes, it should apply
in all future rounds
b) Option 2:
No, it should only apply to this current round.
c)
Option 3: It should apply in
this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should
evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then
decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the
evaluation.
Jeffrey J.
Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business
Affairs
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.