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

["Joy Liddicoat" <joy@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck - I completely agree with your view. In those cases, however,
where representatives do not have all feedback from their constituencies, it
is important to be clear that views are personal and do not necessarily
reflect the views of a group. It is perfectly appropriate and necessary to
take that approach and not at all in conflict with a more general position.

Joy

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 10:07 a.m.
To: Joy Liddicoat; 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

 

Joy,

 

It is my opinion that it is my responsibility as a representative of the
RySG to communicate to RySG delegates essential elements of the debate in
the DT so I try to do that as the debate goes on.  I encourage registry
delegates to provide me any feedback they have so that I have reasonable
confidence that the positions I support will accurately reflect the view of
the RySG.  If other groups don't operate in a similar way, then the value of
having a DT will be minimized and much of the DT work will be minimized and
have to be repeated at the Council level.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:11 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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.