Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Brian,

the Letter of September 14, 2011 indeed gives a direction to "reserve 
those terms most directly associated with the International Olympic 
Committee (IOC) and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Movement", however the term reserve can be interpreted to mean many 
things, one of which I have outlined during our (was it November last 
year?) council call.
I believe the GNSO does have some leeway in their interpretation of the 
GAC advicewhich it should use in such a way to best reflect the needs of 
all the community and all potential registrants. The extreme 
interpretation of the terms as a not-to-be-touched-ever blocking list 
would not be such a result, IMHO.
Best regards,

Volker
> Thank you for these thoughts.  Here are some quick responses in line 
> with your email below.
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> *__*
>
> *Brian J. Winterfeldt *
>
> Partner
>
> _bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>_
>
> Steptoe
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> *From:* Volker Greimann[SMTP:VGREIMANN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:02:52 AM
> *To:* Winterfeldt, Brian
> *Cc:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
> *Auto forwarded by a Rule*
>
> Dear Brian,
>
>     oThe rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which
>     considers "whether there is a need for special protections at the
>     top and second level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of
>     second guessing GAC advice with respect to international legal
>     norms and public policy.  In other words, whether intentional or
>     unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to challenge, or
>     at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for
>     protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection
>     for the specific two organizations that meet that criteria.
>
> Under this scope, the PDP would not only examine the need for special 
> protections in new gTLDs but also under the existing ones. One may 
> argue whether this is necessary or distracting (see the next point), 
> but I do not see it as directly challenging the GAC advice.
> I personally would have preferred a more direct reference to the level 
> of protections required. After all, the term "special protections" is 
> not particularly conclusive as to what these protections are actually 
> supposed to be, and also the GAC has been rather opaque on what kind 
> of protections they envision. It is the duty of the GNSO to fill the 
> GAC advice with life and I agree that the language describing the 
> scope of the PDP should have been more clear on that.
> I thought the GAC was fairly clear about its request for second-level 
> protection in its September 14, 2011 letter 
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and+Red+Cross+Sep.+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1317031625000>.
> oPlease bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections 
> for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO 
> acronyms */_for new gTLDs only_/*.  I cannot recall anyone ever 
> recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as 
> well.  Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain 
> any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the 
> scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs.
> While I also cannot recall any such request or recommendation, I fail 
> to see why new gTLD should be treated differently from existing gTLDs. 
> If it is determined that a form of special protection is necessary, 
> why would such a need not also apply to existing TLDs?
> If that is the reason why the PDP encompasses existing gTLDs, then it 
> should be added to the response to the GAC.  It is just a guess, but 
> perhaps their proposal was limited to new gTLDs to avoid overreaching 
> or conflicts with existing interests in second-level registrations.
> o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest 
> that the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the 
> IOC/Red Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for 
> pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in 
> the domain name context---particularly at the second level and in both 
> new and existing TLDs."  If this is ultimately our position as a 
> Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the 
> current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and 
> Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow.
> Would it not be the job of the PDP to make exactly that determination 
> as part of their deliberations?
> If this is the only issue, or the primary issue, with respect to these 
> entities, then perhaps something other than a full PDP was in order, 
> such as a "policy guidance working group" as suggested in staff's 
> proposed policy versus implementation framework.
> oThe proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, 
> subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent 
> policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN 
> policy staff.  I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no 
> bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further 
> discussion within the ICANN community.
> I would not call it inappropriate just because there is no clear line 
> in the sand.
> Perhaps I am wrong, but I think we can all agree that there is a 
> strong divergence of opinion within the community on the definition of 
> "policy."  I thought it best to acknowledge that in our response to 
> the GAC.  In endorsing this letter as it is written, does everyone 
> intend to endorse Jeff's definition of policy?
>
> Best,
>
> Volker Greimann

--
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.facebook.com/KeySystems
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.facebook.com/KeySystems
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.