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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied 
for statutory protection in various countries.  One other example I am well 
familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are 
plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating 
FIFA's.

I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this 
newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second 
level.  I see no reason to accede to this demand.  

If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level.  
Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I 
have seen.



>________________________________
> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ron Andruff 
><randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc - 
>GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM
>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
> 
>
> 
>I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE 
>LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. 
>
>
>I talked to Wipo  recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but 
>perhaps other  have more detailed insights on that. 
>
>
>I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. 
>
>
>________________________________
>Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800
>From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
>To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>Thanks Steve.
>
>
>I support your initially-stated Option 1:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have 
>lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar 
>treatment.  Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' 
>strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly 
>unjustified.  Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek 
>to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and 
>the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy 
>entities.  This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to 
>two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such 
>powerful lobbyists.
>
>
>Best,
>Mike
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'bc - GNSO list' 
>><bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM
>>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
>> 
>>
>> 
>>Steve,
>> 
>>We support your recommendation noted below,
with the following thoughts.  Clearly, ICANN needs to continue to work
closely with the GAC to keep ITU incursions at bay...  
>> 
>>The only issue I would bring to your
attention is should the IOC and Red Cross get these ‘special dispensations’
(if I may call them that) such a determination would not preclude the 
registrations
of their names in the second level at some future point.  That is to say,
if Olympic Airlines were to eager to register ‘Olympic.aero’ or the
IOC itself were to decide it would like to register ‘Olympics’ in a
new TLD, such an action to facilitate those registrations, should they arise, 
should
be anticipated in your final report.  For example, a letter from IOC to
ICANN declaring no objection to Olympic Airlines could satisfy that ‘release’
for Olympic Airlines.
>> 
>>Hope that this helps.
>> 
>>Thanks for your good work on this WG!
>> 
>>Kind regards,
>> 
>>RA
>> 
>>Ronald N. Andruff
>>RNA Partners, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>>
>>________________________________
>> 
>>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>
>>>Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm
>>>To: bc - GNSO list <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 RoundGAC 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>
>
>