RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES

[<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jennifer,

Olympic as a brand has a history that recedes deeper into history than
1896 and the launch of the first games under the IOC.  The ancient
Olympic games probably had no trademark, but even here in San Francisco,
the Olympic Club was founded in 1860 or so.  That's why there has been
no problem with Olympic Paints holding Olympic.com and the IOC holding
Olympic.org.

The launch of new gTLDs makes that all less definable.  This is what
make action necessary and more difficult.  

Welcome to the GNSO Council!

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST
ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
From: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, November 09, 2012 7:36 am
To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   Hi Jeff & Volker,
  
 I apologize if I am asking an overly simplistic question as one of the
new GNSO Council members, but isn’t the purpose of this motion and PDP
to ensure that internet users are not misdirected when looking for the
one true Red Cross or IOC?  If I am reading the motion correctly, the
intention is to reserve only exact matches.  How is Olympic paints
impacted negatively by this reservation?  They chose their brand knowing
there is a one true IOC and, most likely, intended to leverage the
goodwill associated with the Olympic name.  It would seem it is in the
interest of the greater internet community to protect the IOC and Red
Cross versus brand owners in terms of reservations of rights.  But
again, I’m new to the council, so I apologize if I am missing any
history here that has already addressed this issue.    
  
 With kindest regards,
  
 Jennifer
  
  jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
 managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy ADVISORY firm
 managing partner, Wolfe, Sadler, Breen, Morasch & Colby, a law firm
serving global clients
 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012
 Follow Me:   
 Blog: Moneyball changed baseball – will gTLDs change the internet?
  
 4430 Carver Woods Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45242
 513 746 2801 direct line | 513 746 2828 fax 
 Privileged/confidential information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of
this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message
that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
 
 
   From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:52 AM
 To: Neuman, Jeff
 Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST
ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
 

 
  Hi Jeff,
 
 even if the reservation is temporary this will result in that the
potential applicants are effectively disenfranchised from the
opportunity to participate in the Sunrise periods of any given TLD. I
don't think that registry operators and registrars will be willing to
entertain a second sunrise in each and every new TLD just for these
strings, which would mean that rights holders would have to compete with
other third parties once the reservation were lifted.
 
 While the IOC and RCRC have internationally established protections in
place, these protections are not all-encompassing and allow for other
legitimate uses of these terms. Consequently, any protections for these
strings we implement in addition to the existing protections should also
take into consideration other legitimate rights. 
 
 I am not opposed to additional protections in general, however these
should be fair and balanced. I agree that the worst case scenario you
detail is a distinct problem, but there should be possible solutions for
that issue, such as a specific warning for registering parties at the
time of application for sunrise validation, or the right to participate
in the sunrise despite the reservation (i.e. the sunrise application
would not automatically fail as with standard reservations, but either
remain pending until the PDP is done, or be processed as usual but lead 
to a right to register upon availability instead of instant
registration). 
 
 I agree that we should avoid being cornered by our current decision if
the PDP comes out differently, I am just looking for more flexibility to
allow for alternative solutions that would achieve the same goal.
 
 Best,
 
 
 Volker Greimann
 
 Volker,
  
 Please note that the recommendations are for temporary reservations
pending the outcome of the PDP.  You may be correct in your ultimate
conclusion and that may be the way the PDP comes out.  But out of
practicality, if the PDP comes out the other way (that the names should
be protected), then the only way to realistically implement that would
be if the names were reserved in the first place.  It would be
impossible to take back the names once they are registered by third
parties.  Therefore, the Drafting Team believes that the names should be
reserved initially until the PDP is completed.  Worst case scenario if
we adopt this measure is that the PDP comes out that the names should
not be protected and then we allow for the release of the names at that
time.  If we took your approach and the names should have been protected
(assuming the PDP comes out that way), we are stuck.
  
 I hope this helps explain the Drafting Team position without in any way
downplaying your opposition to the ultimate reservation.
 
 Thanks.
  
  Jeffrey J. Neuman 
 Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
 
 
 
 
 
   From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:49 AM
 To: Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST
ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
 

 
  Dear Jeff, dear fellow councillors,
 
 not trying to ruffle any feathers here, especially at this late stage,
but I have strong objections to the concept of implementing blanket
mandatory restrictions to the legitimate rights of potential domain
owners to apply for certain strings on the second level based solely on
the lobbying power of the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The
proposed reserving of the listed terms effectively removes the ability
of other potential rights holders in these strings to apply for their
trademarks or other name rights in the sunrise phase of any newly
launched gTLD, especially since the TMCH warning process would provide
the protected entities and the applicant with ample warning of the
potential conflict during the launch. Only once the minimum duration of
the TMCH protection in newly launched TLDs expires does further
protection become necessary.
 
 A quick search shows numerous such potential applicants for the string
"Olympic" alone: restaurants, an airline, a paint company, a travel
agency, hotels, a college, a dairy company and many more, none of which
infringe upon the legally protected rights of the above organizations by
use of the string "olympic". The blanket restriction therefore seems as
an overreach, especially since effective protection mechanisms are
already implemented during the launch.
 
 A more differentiated approach therefore seems appropriate, such as a
requirement for new gTLD registries to add the affected strings to the
reserved list only after the TMCH is no longer effective for the TLD, or
allowing Sunrise applications despite the restriction. 
 
 While I understand and agree with the need to implement some form of
protections for the above organizations, such protections should not
infringe on third party rights to apply for the registration of domain
names that match their legal rights in an undue manner.
 
 Best,
 
 Volker Greimann
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 All,
  
 On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the
following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team.  For the
record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by the
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were supported
by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual Property
Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, the
representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the
International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.  The
Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team.
  
 Thanks.
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  
  MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR
CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES 
   
  Made by: Jeff Neuman
  Seconded by:
   
 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)
  
  The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has
considered a number of different options with respect to protections of
both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to
provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second
level in new gTLDS; 
   
  The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP
and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names,
was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9
November 2012; 
   
  The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP)
to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization
names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend
policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and
   
  Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council
recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the
IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact
match IOC/RC names,  prior to the delegation of the first round of new
gTLDs. 
   
  NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 
   
  That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s
recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC
second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant
Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011pending the
outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving
International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations.
  
 That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team
for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby
disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and
   
  That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these
recommendations to the ICANN Board.
  
  
 Jeffrey J. Neuman 
 Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
 Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965
/ jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 --  Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.   Mit
freundlichen Grüßen,   Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -  
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 -
9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com   Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser
Fan bei Facebook: www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems   Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken  Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534   Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu    Der Inhalt
dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger
bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe
an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail
oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.  
--------------------------------------------   Should you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.   Best regards,
  Volker A. Greimann - legal department -   Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen
Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0)
6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Web:
www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com   Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on
Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems   CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.:
HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken  V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534   Member of the
KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu    This e-mail and its attachments is
intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is
not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use,
disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or
transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author
by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.        
 
 
 
 --  Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.   Mit
freundlichen Grüßen,   Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -  
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 -
9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com   Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser
Fan bei Facebook: www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems   Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken  Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534   Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu    Der Inhalt
dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger
bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe
an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail
oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.  
--------------------------------------------   Should you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.   Best regards,
  Volker A. Greimann - legal department -   Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen
Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0)
6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Web:
www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com   Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on
Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems   CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.:
HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken  V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534   Member of the
KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu    This e-mail and its attachments is
intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is
not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use,
disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or
transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author
by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.