[council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe should be sent 
by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion yesterday on the IOC/Red 
Cross names, including both a recap of our understanding of the proposal and 
the questions we have.  This is a first draft and I welcome your comments or 
suggestions.  I know the suggestion that we form a joint group was met with 
silence, but I strongly believe we should continue to press on that.

Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Dear __________,

The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the GAC's 
"Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International Committee and Red 
Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs" ("Proposal").   We want to assure you 
that the GNSO Council has taken, and will continue to take, the proposal 
seriously.  At this point in time, we do not have a consensus position of the 
Council on this topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way 
work with collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to the 
issues identified.

To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal to ensure 
that we had a common understanding on the Proposal.   Our understanding is that 
the Proposal at the top-level is (a) to place the exact strings contained in 
Schedule A of the Proposal on the official reserved names list as opposed to 
the "Strings Ineligible for Registration" list in the Applicant Guidebook, and 
(b) that the  reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in just the 
initial round.

At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in Schedule A 
be "reserved".  With respect to this proposal, the GNSO raised several 
questions during its discussions this weekend.  The first is to confirm whether 
the reservation sought applies just to exact matches of those marks or whether 
it is the GAC's desire to "reserve" all strings containing those marks.  We 
have assumed it was the former, but would like to confirm.

In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of Reserved 
Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry Agreement.  The 
first type which only consists of the string "EXAMPLE" is a reserved name which 
may under no circumstances be delegated at the second level.  The second type 
of Reserved Names are those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the 
Registry Operator (eg, www, nic and whois).  A third type of reserved names are 
those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated under certain limited 
circumstances.  For example, two character strings are initially reserved, 
however, the Registry Operator may propose release of these reservations based 
on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding 
country codes.  Further, country and territory names are initially reserved, 
but may be released to the extent that the Registry Operator reaches agreement 
with the applicable government(s), or subject to review by ICANN's Governmental 
Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.

Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and Red Cross 
marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the IOC, Red Cross and/or 
their affiliated entities may want to use the domain names and the second-level 
themselves.  In addition, notwithstanding the international protection afforded 
to these marks, there may be certain circumstances where third parties do have 
a legitimate right to use and register these marks either due to grandfathering 
rules, geographic considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic 
paint).  Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a mechanism to 
release these names to those entities and that such a mechanism still needs to 
be developed.

The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought out and 
detailed proposal and would like to again request that the GNSO work 
collaboratively together to address these questions We believe a good way 
forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC and GNSO to form a 
committee or task force to work through these issues with the goal of sending 
those recommendations back to their respective organizations for approval.  We 
know time is limited to resolve these matters and remain committed to do so as 
quickly as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________

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 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://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.