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

[Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Two thoughts:

- I believe that during the last meeting, a 
suggestion was made that we might want to treat 
the Olympic names differently from the Red Cross 
ones, since the former were much more likely to 
overlap with other valid trade marks and possibly 
valid uses of the names/words.
- Regarding your not about "no appeal", is it 
clear that the Bylaw provisions for Board 
Reconsideration and the Ombudsman do not apply in 
the cases of decisions made with respect to new 
gTLDs? I am not questioning how likely such 
appeals would be to succeed, just whether they are in fact ruled out.
Alan

At 24/01/2012 11:01 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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 / 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / 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.