Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
New draft. One further edit. Stéphane Attachment:
GAC GNSO Message v0.3.docx Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:50, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : > Thanks John, > > Here's a draft with this latest edit. > > Does the Council approve this draft? > > Stéphane > > <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> >> >> >
|