RE: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs

["Joy Liddicoat" <joy@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff ,

I appreciate you taking the initiative in relation to this motion, however,
I would point out, as a member of the Drafting Team, that the Drafting Team
has not yet agreed how it will report to the Council on its work (including
the range of options that were considered) and neither have we agreed to
propose these recommendations. I appreciate the urgency with this task and
your work, but I feel strongly that this motion may be seen as
pre-determining the outcome of our work and the public comment period. 

I just think Council should be aware of this before our meeting, which I am
looking forward to

Kind regards

Joy

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 3:22 a.m.
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC
Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs

 

All,

 

In order to get this on the agenda by the deadline, here is a motion I have
crafted on the adoption of the DT recommendations.  The wording for
Recommendation 2 will change over the week to reflect the fact that we have
received the list from the IOC (and translations) and hopefully the Red
Cross by the time we actually hold the vote.  Other than that, the substance
is the same.

 

Happy to take comments on this.

 

****************************************************************************
*********

 

MOTION TO  RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD A SOLUTION TO PROTECT CERTAIN RED
CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES AT
THE TOP LEVEL IN NEW GTLDS

 

Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and
CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of
text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names
for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO
and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ."
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

 

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has
considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both
the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution  to
modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected
in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 <LINK>;

 

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify
a solution that addresses GAC concerns,;

Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March
2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the
Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications,
which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012; 

 

Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO
Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board
consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application
period for the first round of new gTLD applications'.  

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

 

Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three
recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and
RCRC names at the top level as provided in
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely:

 

Recommendation 1:    Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as
"Modified Reserved Names," meaning: 
 

a)               The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings
to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective
components, as applicable.  

 

b)               Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by
the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to
determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An
application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a
Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.  

 

c)               If an application fails to pass initial string similarity
review: 

 

                                            i.                        And
the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names
(e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other
than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. 

 

                                          ii.                        If the
applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but
fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names,
the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 

 

1.      Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as
applicable; or

 

2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:
                    

a.      claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate
the basis for this claim; and

b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar
to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to
the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

 

3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision
(ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties
from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the
determination.

 

4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection
by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to
(ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the
applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

 

Recommendation 2:    Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as
Feasible

 

            The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be
protected in multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in
languages used on the Internet.The lists of protected names that the IOC and
RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive."
Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that the lists provided by
the IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language
on the Internet is not a standard that the Drafting Team believes is
feasible to achieve.  While it is true that the list of languages can be
expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a String Similarity Review
(as recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be
created.  It is the Drafting Team's understanding that representatives from
the IOC and RCRC are working on the creation of that definitive list and
should be able to present that to the Drafting Team by no later than the
ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica.  If such a list can be produced, the Drafting
Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in
the Applicant Guidebook.  

 

            In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the
unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a
language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable,
may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant
Guidebook.

 

Recommendation 3:    Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may
be reviewed after the first round.

                                    

            In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections
for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new
gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent
rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing
this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this
recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also
recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these
protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do
so. 

 

 

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board
consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 meeting in Costa Rica as a
recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for
implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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.