[gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposals to Discuss Regarding Top-Level Protection

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

On the call on Wednesday, I would like to focus only on protections at the 
top-level to see if we can find consensus within the group on the GAC 
proposals.  Below, I have laid out the GAC proposal along with the Questions we 
have been discussing.  For each question, I have laid out what I believe are 
the options available to us to recommend.  There may be other options I have 
not thought of, so the first order of business for each question is to discuss 
whether there are any other options available and to document those.  Then, we 
will discuss the pros and cons with respect to each option and the merits 
associated with them.  If people want to express their opinions as to which 
option they prefer on any question, that would be great.  If not, and there is 
no pressure to pick an option on this call, I will put these questions out for 
a period of 10 days to get you to weigh in with the selection of an option.  
These will then be documented in a report to the Council.

I hope to do the same with the second level protections, although the issues 
are more complex and there are a lot more options.  Granted, there is also more 
time before we need to finalize the second level protections.

Finally, I would like to discuss timing for an update to the Council and the 
GAC in February in preparation for the Costa Rica Meeting.  In Costa Rica I 
would propose having the following sessions to address this issue:


1.        A meeting of just the Drafting Team during the GNSO weekend in Costa 
Rica

2.       An update to the GNSO Council during the GNSO weekend

3.       A meeting with the GAC during the GNSO weekend
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

Are there any other options?

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.

Are there any other options?

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.
Are there any other options?

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.