[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Notes for Today's call

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff.  Please see my comments inserted below.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:48 AM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Notes for Today's call

All,

Happy New Year.  Our first call was not the widely attended and the bulk of the 
call was devoted to the philosophical issue of whether this is policy vs. 
implementation.  We decided that we would ask staff to get guidance on this 
issue, but we would proceed based on the assumption that we were dealing with 
issues of implementation.  We were all supposed to go back to our groups to get 
some thoughts on the questions below and the proposals to be prepared to get 
down to the substance and the details of the proposals on this call.

My notes are in red below (Sorry to those reading on Blackberry or in plain 
text).  These are just my notes from the call and re-reading the transcript.  
If others have different recollections, please let me know.

Overall Issues:



a)      What is our role?

[Jeff] Provide advice to the GNSO Council in their interactions with the GAC on 
the GAC proposal on the handling of IOC/Red Cross names at the top and second 
levels in the new gTLD program.

b)      Do we believe this issue is one of implementation (as the GAC has 
interpreted), or is this an issue of policy?

[Jeff]  On the last call we decided to proceed with the discussions based on 
the assumption that these issues were ones of implementation as opposed to a 
policy.  However, we asked ICANN staff to go back to their management to get 
some more context on the board discussion in Singapore around their motion on 
this issue.

[Gomes, Chuck] I personally think considering it an implementation issue works 
but the lines are blurry.  If staff suggests that it is not, then we should try 
to expedite a modification to the new gTLD policy if possible.  Of course that 
is a big 'if'.

c)       Are we just talking about IOC and Red Cross Names or are we opening 
this up to other names (i.e., IGOs)?

[Jeff] At this point looking at any other names is beyond the scope of this 
group.

[Gomes, Chuck] Those are the only names that the GAC requested.

d)      Should these marks be protected at all?  Pros vs. Cons?  (NOTE:  This 
item's discussion can take up the entire call, but I do not want to dwell on 
this given the number of subjects.  What I would like to do is spend no more 
than 15 minutes on this subject listing the arguments for and against.  Of 
course we will allow anyone to submit comments via e-mail on this subject after 
the call for evaluation).  I am not trying to suppress any discussion on this, 
but given that we spent almost all of the Council discussions in Dakar on this 
question alone and did not have much time to discuss the other questions, I 
want us to be able to get on to the other questions.

[Jeff]  There are differing views on this issue, but that should not prevent us 
from evaluating the proposals.

[Gomes, Chuck] In the case of the RySG, our concerns early on regarding this 
issue were primarily about setting unnecessary precedents.  The RySG feels that 
the GAC letter sufficiently dealt with our concerns by providing evidence of 
the unique status of the two categories of names, thereby avoiding unnecessary 
precedents. It seems to me, regarding the recent request for IGO names, that 
IGO names do not have the same status as the RC/IOC names based on the criteria 
in the GAC letter, thereby illustrating the thoroughness of the GAC letter.

Top Level Protection
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.

Questions:

a)       Should the reservation be permanent or just apply during the first 
round? i

[Jeff} On this issue the question was asked whether the GAC (or a government) 
has grounds to file an objection/early warning/etc to someone trying to get 
"Olympics" if "Olympic" s protected under the current rules today?   If so, do 
they need to have the "string similarity" review?

[Gomes, Chuck] Unlike other objectors, the Guidebook allows the GAC to object 
on anything.  If the names are reserved, then the string similarity review 
would kick in as applicable.

[Jeff] Staff was supposed to check into this question.



b)      Should terms in this round and beyond receive consideration during 
string similarity review?

c)       Should reservation in this round and beyond extend to additional 
languages?

d)      Would (d) above apply to additional languages?[Gomes, Chuck]  This is 
(d); which item does this refer to?

[Jeff]  Staff was supposed to check into this question.


Second Level Protections
With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the new 
gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved names. 
The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A attached to 
their proposal.    They recommend the identical terms be protected in the 6 UN 
languages with an "encouragement" to registries to provide additional languages.

Questions

a.       Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level 
in all new gTLDs?

b.      If so, what type of reserved name would this be?

                                                                  i.      A 
"forbidden name" that can never be registered (not even by those organizations) 
- NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they want.

                                                                ii.      Like a 
2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose release of 
these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion 
with the corresponding country codes.

                                                              iii.      Like a 
Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the reservation 
of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent that 
Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), 
provided, further, that Registry Operator may also propose release of these 
reservations, subject to review by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and 
approval by ICANN.

c.       Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released:  What would 
be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.