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 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> > >
|