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

[Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Darwin agrees with this approach.  Long term, domain names are going to be 
subsumed into the global branding milieu, but we don't have to go there at the 
moment.

- Mike


On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:

> 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>
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ron Andruff 
> <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc - 
> GNSO list <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
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
> To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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>
> 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 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 noappeal.
> 
> ·        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
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12
>