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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons:
 
In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as:
As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding
of your proposal.
 
In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing
registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there
would be no impact on existing registrations. 

Not married to either edit, just suggestions.


Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re:
IOC/Red Cross Names
From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am
To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Jeff,

I have made some suggestions.

Berard


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re:
IOC/Red Cross Names
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 3:37 am
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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 / 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.