ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:15:41 -0700
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac0LdBJvqbn7FsxtQMmYmM+MrWPrhg==
  • Thread-topic: GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012

Dear All,

The GNSO Council passed the following motion at the meeting today, 26 March 

A recording of the meeting is available at:


Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,


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, . . ." 

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 

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, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board's resolution is 
needed to be available before the end of the Application Window;

Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the 

Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the 
protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level;  and

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'.


Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations of 
the IOC/RC Drafting Team:

Recommendation 1:    Treat the terms set forth in Section 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 

                  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."  The Drafting 
Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of 
languages currently provided in Section of the Applicant Guidebook 
are sufficient.

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 must be reviewed after the first round and 
that review should include consideration of changing the language to general 
requirements rather than naming specific organizations.

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. The Drafting Team 
recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have 
policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections 
may be reviewed.

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration 
and adoption at its next meeting as a recommended solution to implement Board 
Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD 

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>