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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Sorry for the delay in my response, but we just closed the most recent 
consensus call on the Drafting Team's recommendations before responding.  Due 
to timing issues, I did have to present the motion to the council before the 
completion of the consensus call.  It was not the optimal way to do this I 
confess, but in this situation we did the best we could with the compressed 
timelines.  I was fairly comfortable based on the discussions of the group that 
we would have Consensus or Strong Support when I presented the motion and 
always intended to report that to the Council in Costa Rica this weekend.

I believe the results indicate that we do have a Consensus of the Drafting Team 
that supports the substance of the Recommendations in the motion.  Please note 
that "Consensus" does not mean unanimity and as there was one group that voted 
no.  Therefore, we do not have Unanimous Consensus support. Although 
participants in the Drafting Team were participating as individuals, many of 
the individuals did consult with the respective groups in arriving at their 
decision.   In considering whether there was consensus, since there were some 
constituencies/groups that had multiple members, I have grouped them together 
for fairness purposes.  I did not want, for example, to weigh the opinions of 
those from the International Olympic Committee more heavily than the person 
representing the registries simply because the IOC had 3 representatives and 
the registries only 1 .  The Breakdown was as follows:


RySG - Yes (Gomes)
IPC - Yes (Evans, Shatan)
ISP - Yes (Novoa)
BC - Yes (DelBianco)
NCUC - No (Liddicoat, Komaitis, Dammak)
NCA Appointes - Yes (Ajayi, Rickert)
ALAC - Yes (Greenberg)
Red Cross - Yes (Hughes, Hankins, Lanord)
IOC - Yes (Bikoff, Malancharuvil, Heasley)


**RrSG - The Registrars did not participate in any of the discussions, e-mail 
archives or consensus call as there were no registrar members on the Drafting 
Team.

Note 1:  The Drafting Team was only asked to agree or not agree with the 
substance of the recommendations and not on the process that will or wont be 
followed by the GNSO Council in voting on the recommendations.  They were not 
asked, for example to opine on (i) whether the initial Board Resolution was the 
right one, (ii) whether we needed to provide more rationale on why to protect 
the IOC/RC names, (iii), whether there should or should not be additional 
comment periods, etc.  That is the job of the Council to evaluate.  The 
Drafting Team was asked only to respond to the substance of the GAC proposal 
and present its advice to the GNSO Council.

Note 2:  The NCUC members of the DT voted no to the recommendations for the 
following reasons:

a)       Ms. Liddicoat stated:  "My reasons are because the recommendations are 
not the best option for implementing the Board decision as set out in the 
Applicant Guidebook, go further than matters of "implementation" and would 
secure extended protections beyond what is reasonable (including language 
protections in recommendation 2 which are outside the scope of the Board 
decision). Please note that despite not agreeing with some of the options under 
DT discussion (and the motion proposed) I have nonetheless worked in a spirit 
of cooperation to assist discussion of whether the options are workable"

b)      Mr. Komaitis stated:  "On the recommendation itself (1), I believe 
there is simply not enough justification in going beyond the protection the 
Board has already included in the Applicant Guidebook and I am, in 
particularly, uneasy with the various obstacles that this recommendation 
creates for other legitimate rights owners (Greek communities, other trademark 
owners, etc.). On the issue of which languages protection should extend to, I 
believe that our point of reference should be the existing international legal 
instruments and that this group should not accept an arbitrary list compiling 
various national laws. Finally, I think that given the complexity and potential 
impact these recommendations may have, at a first instance these protections 
should not be extended to all future rounds and should be the subject of a 
review."

c)       Mr. Dammak stated his non-support was based on the same rationale as 
Mr. Komaitis and Ms. Liddicoat.
Note 3:  As the Chair of the Drafting Team, I did not participate in the 
Consensus call.
Please let me know if you have any questions.  I will be happy to address them 
this weekend.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
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.


From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 6:20 AM
To: Joy Liddicoat; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC 
Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs

Thanks Joy.

Jeff, the points Joy raises require some further explanations I think. Your 
motion is asking the Council to approve recommendations. Whenever the Council 
receives such a request, it is with the understanding that the DT has adopted 
the recommendations as formal. If this is not the case here, perhaps the DT has 
more work to do and this motion needed to be introduced now to beat the 
deadline and that is fine, but it does require some more info I think.

Can you comment please?

Stéphane



Le 6 mars 2012 à 23:55, Joy Liddicoat a écrit :


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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 3:22 a.m.
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 
inhttp://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 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://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.