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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

With such communication in mind, when can we 
expect to see the current version of Option 7 so 
that we can share it with our respective groups?
Alan

At 22/02/2012 04:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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  / 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.