ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Thanks John,

Here's a draft with this latest edit.

Does the Council approve this draft?

Stéphane

Attachment: GAC GNSO Message v0.2.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

Le 25 oct. 2011 à 10:53, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Stephane,
> 
> I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph is
> grammatically challenged.  I have restated it as:
> 
> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding
> of the proposal. 
> 
> The Proposal,at the top-level, places 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 permanent, not
> just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names may not
> be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark
> owners.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Berard
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re:
> IOC/Red Cross Names
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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>
> 
> 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>