<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
- To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc - GNSO list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:36:27 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Steve,</div><div><br></div><div>I am good with those
choices.</div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red<br>
Cross Names<br>
From: Steve DelBianco <<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Mon, February 06, 2012 11:11 am<br>
To: bc - GNSO list <<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>"
<<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<div> <div> <div>John Berard asked me which options the WG is likely to
pursue. Can't really predict that, but it would be good to express what
BC members think are the best options.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Would any BC
members object to endorsing these options that I would recommend?</div>
<div><br> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;"> <div>Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow
letter of non-objection.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Q2: Option 2. Give
GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the listed names.</div>
<div><br> </div> <div>Q3: Option 3. Reserve policy would apply in this
round, with no decision on subsequent rounds.</div> </blockquote> <div><br>
</div> </div> </div> <div><br> </div> <span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> <div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;">
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;"> <div id="wmQuoteWrapper">-------- Original Message
--------<br> Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red
Cross<br> Names<br> From: Steve DelBianco <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm<br> To: bc - GNSO list <<a
target="_blank" href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br> <div> <div> <div>I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO
Working Group on answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red
Cross and the Olympics.</div> <div><br> </div> <div> <div>Jeff Neuman of
Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific
recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level.</div> <div><br> </div>
<div>We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the
questions below, with respect to just top-level domains:</div> <div><b><br>
</b></div> <div>--Steve</div> <div><b><br> </b></div> <div><b>Question 1.
How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the
Current Application Round</b></div> </div> </div> </div> <span
id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> <div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml";
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> <div link="blue" vlink="purple"
lang="EN-US"> <div class="WordSection1"> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u>GAC Proposal<br> </u>At the top
level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words
“test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending
those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String
Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in
the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke
String Similarity Review.<br> <u><br> </u><span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 1</u>: Recommend no
changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names
set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:<br> a) Are not
considered “Reserved Names”<br> b) Applied for
strings are <u>not</u> reviewed for similarity to the names in Section
2.2.1.2.3.<br> <u><br> </u><span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 2:</u> Treat
the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section
2.2.1.2. This means that:<br> a) the names are not available as gTLD
strings to anyone; and<br> b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed
during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to
those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified
as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.<br> c)
Like other applied for gTLDs not
passing String Similarity Review, there is <u>no</u> appeal.<br> <br> <span
style="">· </span> <u>Option 3</u>:
Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved
names” meaning:<br> a) The names are available as
gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.<br> b)
applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the
String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in
Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too
similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.<br> c)
Like other applied for gTLDs not passing
String Similarity Review, there is <u>no</u> appeal.<br> <br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 4a</u> – Same as
Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that
can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal
mechanism TBD.<br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 4b</u> – Same as
Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that
can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.”
Appeal mechanism TBD.<br> <br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 5a</u>: Same
as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD
strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of
non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. <br> <br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 5b</u>: Same as
Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from
a relevant government.<br> <br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 6a</u>: Same as
Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that
can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.”
Appeal mechanism TBD.<br> <br> <span style="">·
</span> <u>Option 6b</u>: Same as
Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can
demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal
mechanism TBD.<br> <br> <b>Question 2. Should the protections set forth
in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in
Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? <br> </b>a)
<u>Option 1</u>: No, just the languages set
forth in the Applicant Guidebook<br> b) <u>Option
2</u>: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “<i>multiple
languages -</i> all translations of the listed names in languages used on the
Internet.”<br> c) <u>Option 3</u>:
Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages.<br>
<u><br> </u><b>Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2
apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?<br> <br> </b>a)
<u>Option 1</u>: Yes, it should apply
in all future rounds<br> b) <u>Option 2:</u>
No, it should only apply to this current round.<br> c)
<u>Option 3</u>: It should apply in
this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should
evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then
decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the
evaluation.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;;"><br> </div> </div> </div> </div> </span></div>
</blockquote> </span></div> </div> </span>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|