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

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes

Rosemary

Rosemary Sinclair
Director, External Relations
Australian School of Business
UNSW
+61 413 734490

On 26/10/2011, at 5:35 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> New draft. One further edit.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> <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>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>