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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's interesting, since we have not really discussed "new options 1A
and B" within this group.  (I think I was the only one to comment on the
substance of the proposals, and there was no response.)
 
Greg

________________________________

From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:16 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Alan Greenberg'; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call



All options have been shared in NCSG on several occasions, except  for
the new option 7. The new options 1A and B are also under discussion
there.

Joy

 

From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 12:28 p.m.
To: Joy Liddicoat; Alan Greenberg; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

 

While we should certainly be transparent with our respective groups,
aren't we getting to the point where the DT should try to reach a rough
consensus, unless the consensus is that there is no consensus?  In any
event, I assume that the groups have seen all options (other than the
new Option 7) -- at least, I know that I shared the previous option tree
with the IPC.

 

Greg

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:12 PM
To: 'Alan Greenberg'; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

Hi - I support sharing all options with our respective groups. We are
also seeking further comments on proposals for reporting to Council on
the DT work.

Cheers

Joy 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 11:39 a.m.
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call

 

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
<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
<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   / 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.
 

 

* * * 

 

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation. 

* * * 

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. 

Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03

pdc1