RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names

["Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My only question is for Q3, why we wouldn't want to say protection should apply 
to subsequent rounds.  I know option 3  gives the appearance of being more 
cautious,  but as a practical matter, the reserve policy should continue in 
order to be effective.  Of course, we'd like to see this same kind of 
protection available for all trademark owners.

Sarah



Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names

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.

Would any BC members object to endorsing these options that I would recommend?

Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow letter of 
non-objection.

Q2: Option 2.  Give GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the 
listed names.

Q3: Option 3.  Reserve policy would apply in this round, with no decision on 
subsequent rounds.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
Names
From: Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
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.

Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards 
specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level.

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:

--Steve

Question 1.  How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated 
in the Current Application Round
GAC Proposal
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.

*        Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal.  
This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a)       Are not considered "Reserved Names"
b)      Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in 
Section 2.2.1.2.3.

*        Option 2:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as 
"reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2.  This means that:
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
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.
c)        Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, 
there is no appeal.

*        Option 3:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified 
reserved names" meaning:
a)      The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International 
Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as 
applicable.
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.
c)       Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, 
there is no appeal.

*        Option 4a - 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.
*        Option 4b - 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.

*        Option 5a:  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.

*        Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a 
letter of non-objection from a relevant government.

*        Option 6a: 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.

*        Option 6b: 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.

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?
a)      Option 1:  No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook
b)      Option 2:  Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in 
"multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on 
the Internet."
c)       Option 3:  Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of 
languages.

Question 3.  Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent 
gTLD rounds?

a)       Option 1:  Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
b)      Option 2:   No, it should only apply to this current round.
c)       Option 3:  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.