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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I tend to side with Mike in this. The GAC is now a force and must be worked 
with, but it also needs pushback when it goes too far.

No one in their right minds is going to throw away $185k trying to apply for 
.olympics or .redcross. That said, if this is truly a unique situation and 
doesn’t set a precedent that opens the floodgates for more special protection, 
I’d have no objection to the BC issuing a letter of non-objection to reserving 
these names for the first round, at the top level only.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:25 PM
To: Marilyn Cade; ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names

Thanks Marilyn.  I agree it has beneficial to work with the GAC, but 
unfortunately I see at least some members overreaching to the point where there 
needs to be some pushback even from those of us who want to work with them.  If 
these two entities are truly unique due to treaties, then the policy allowing 
reservation ought to be strictly limited only to those two organizations, and 
only because of their truly unique status of protection via nearly-global 
international treaty (as opposed to bilateral or trilateral treaties involving 
only a few countries).

Again, I know there are many organizations that have 'national law status' in 
the U.S. and internationally, with FIFA as just one glaring example.  So that 
ought not be the basis on which this privilege is granted.  Otherwise I fear 
this issue will continue to recur as other powerful organizations seek the same 
privilege.

________________________________
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; ron 
Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Steve 
Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; bc - 
GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names

Mike, thanks for your response.

I may have a different perspective, in working with the GAC  overall. In my 
personal view, and also in my view as chair,  the BC has benefitted from an 
improved working relationship with the governments -- witness the GAC 
Scorecard,and work related to WHOIS /LEA topics.

I think that BC members -- business users more broadly -- are trying to work 
with a key player in the ICANN process.

Have you had a chance to review the GAC document, which has international 
treaty, and national law status for the Olympic and Red Cross names? that was a 
powerful and informed document, with a strong justification that these names 
are unique in such status.

Marilyn Cade
________________________________
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:04:13 -0800
From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
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<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; ron 
Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Steve 
Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; bc - 
GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: 'Steve DelBianco' 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 'bc - GNSO list' 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://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> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto: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.





________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12