ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-iocrc-dt] String Similarity Review

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] String Similarity Review
  • From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:12:25 -0500

In response to Jeff Neuman's request for email follow-up on the String
Similarity issue, I  wanted to confirm that I am in favor of a String
Similarity review for the IOC/RC names.  I don't think it's a
particularly complicated process (as one participant in the call
stated), and I assume that it will become more fleshed out as reviews
take place under the various provisions that trigger such reviews.  In
any event, it's an integral part of the new gTLD process.


I think this issue also needs to be considered in conjunction with the
list of names/strings that will be explicitly reserved (translations and
variations) -- not that a longer list obviates the need for string
similarity review (e.g., Jeff's "olympics" vs. "olympix" example).
Nonetheless, we should probably seek clarification on what the proposed
list of IOC/RC names would be (e.g., red crescent, croix rouge, mogen
david adom, etc.).


Thank you.


Best regards,


Greg  Shatan


Gregory S. Shatan 
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
IP | Technology | Media 
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 | Phone
917.816.6428 | Mobile
212.521.5450 | Fax



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



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.

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.

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.


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, 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



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?  

[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?

[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.



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

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.

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. 
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy