<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:37:46 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:sender:x-mailer:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=tipPsKHG1Vbh7oebdJGVHEPiduLF7M13pmfTUHR0QKI=; b=AOFssEsJnu931V7T3TCSYLbbi12lRLr2FdX4lTkCncCsCFqzE7xH1bL8X20GVJnDmL WuTFjou3jGTYNjyfp9lmyTsYzl+cjo3LW8PzZHDKWHP5Fbse64aQRoL4lDrn+2EzyF34 2dmEqGPAsNySaZopiBAi8F7mYZJbLuhTsSM6s=
- In-reply-to: <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA7080E6A412A@STNTEXCH01.cis. neustar.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA7080E6A412A@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 24/10/2011 06:37 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
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
Replace phrase: we both have a
common understanding on
Replace word: of
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.
Add: This implies that the names may not be used as gTLDs, even at
the request of the designated trade-mark owners.
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.
I think that a few examples of names that could be registered under
this assumption should be included. Perhaps Olympics-Seoul,
Olympic-Games and Red-Cross and RedCross-Tsunami.
It may also be worth pointing out that at the second level, there are
currently no (few?) examples where such comparison test are made
during the second-level domain registration process, and the
implementation of such a requirement may be problematic.
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.
Lastly, their cover letter says: "The GAC's proposal characterizes
protection of the Red Cross and IOC names at the second level as an
implementation aspect of the new gTLD program, consistent with
existing registry contracts."
Does that imply an expectation that whatever comes out of this
process will be applied to existing gTLDs as well?
Alan
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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / 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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|