AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I missed the call in details. Can you resend this.?
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Stephane Hankins
Gesendet: Mi 08.02.2012 19:45
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call


Dear Chuck and colleagues, 

The password I was given does not seem to be recognized by the Central. Could 
you kindly send it to me once again. 

Many thanks, 

Stephane Hankins 
ICRC 



From:        "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To:        "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Date:        08.02.2012 18:53 
Subject:        [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call 
Sent by:        owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 

________________________________




My apologies Jeff for not responding on the list sooner but I am just now 
getting feedback from RySG delegates.  I will be prepared to share on the call 
today if there is time. 
  
Chuck 
  
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:04 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call 
  
All, 
  
Here is my proposed Agenda for the call on Wednesday.  Please let me know if 
you want to add anything else. 
  
I.                    Schedule (including Costa Rica sessions) 
II.                  Recap of Last Call 
III.                Feedback from Team/Constituencies/SGs/ACs on Top-Level 
Options 
IV.                Next Steps / Prep for GNSO Call & Possible Status call with 
GAC 
  
I am a little disappointed by the lack of e-mails in the last two weeks on the 
questions presented, so please come to the meeting ready to contribute. 

Thanks. 
  
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
  
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.

*        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. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
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. 
  

________________________________


The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and 
other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org 
<http://www.icrc.org/>  

This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named 
recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended 
recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. 

________________________________