Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who proposed edits. I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put words in other people's mouths. Please review/comment as required. Stéphane Attachment:
GAC GNSO Message.docx Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's > suggestions.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM > To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red > Cross Names > > > 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. > > > <GAC letter.doc>
|