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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think it would be very helpful to the Council if we submit multiple 
options. It would be much better if we can reach at least rough consensus on 
one recommendation. That of course doesn't prevent Counselors from bringing up 
alternatives.

[Konstantinos Komaitis] I disagree – I think the Council needs to get the 
various options discussed and in particular the ones that this group has 
focused on. Of course, we can present to the Council the option that has 
received rough consensus but we should not omit those recommendations that were 
also heavily discussed. If we only present to the council the one that has 
received rough consensus we are leaving outside a huge part of the discussions 
that, I believe, the Council should be aware of.

The discussions we currently have are exceptional and unprecedented and we need 
to make sure that the Council is presented with as much information as possible.

Thanks

Konstantinos





From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:10 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff' <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

Hi Jeff,
Just commenting on option 1 before our call tomorrow (I can see no update on 
these in the wiki or from another circulated agenda for tomorrow, so presume 
these all remain in the table, subject to the discussions on the list e.g. 
about option 7).
My comments below for ease of reference – these are my personal 
comments/suggestions and not the views of NCUC. I’d just note that while NCUC 
members have strong views of principle and a preferred option, members do of 
course still wish to contribute constructively to the critique and development 
of *all* options to ensure these are workable, regardless of which one is 
ultimately preferred.
Cheers
Joy

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2012 4:04 p.m.
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.
JL: The options go from a simple rejection of the GAC proposal to more nuanced 
reserved names options. More options are possible for responding constructively 
to the GAC. For example, recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to 
the GAC proposal positively by suggesting a supplementary list of designated 
names of those proffered by the GAC. Provided the supplementary names fall 
within the designated names in the guidebook this might be more comfortably 
construed as implementation – but others may feel quite differently about that. 
Further, there may be an option for some joint working group with GAC on this, 
as GAC has proposed, that we could also explore, rather than simply “outright 
rejection” or “reserved or modified reserved names” (I say that with no 
disrespect to all the work that has been done in developing these options). 
Thus, a new Option 1A or 1B might look like this:
Option 1A: Recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to the GAC proposal 
positively by proposing supplementing the list of designated names within those 
recommended by GAC in September 2011. This means that the names set forth in 
2.2.1.2.3:

a)      Are designated names

b)      Are not considered “reserved names”

c)       Are implemented with a list of supplementary designated names as 
previously set out by the GAC

d)      Designated names, including supplementary, are reviewed after the 
initial round, as provided in the Guidebook

e)      This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross from bringing a legal rights 
objection elsewhere in the initial round in accordance with the Guidebook.
Option 1B:  Option 1A and proposing a joint working group with GAC to support 
the Designated Names Review after the initial round, as provided in the 
Guidebook.
•        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.