RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] DT CONSENSUS CALL ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL

["Lanre Ajayi" <lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

YES.

 

Lanre Ajayi

 

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:58 AM
To: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] DT CONSENSUS CALL ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TOP
LEVEL

 

All,

 

Many of you may have noticed that I proposed a motion today on the GNSO
Council for the Council to approve the 3 recommendations and send those to
the Board.  I had to do that today in order to meet the timelines and get a
motion on the agenda.  The wording can always be tweaked.  However, I do
want to take a "Consensus" poll of those in the Drafting Team on the
substance of the recommendations.  It appears likely that the GAC as a group
will likely support the recommendations and it would be great to report that
we have at least a rough consensus in our group supporting the substance.

 

Please note that I am not asking about process or whether the GNSO Council
or the Board should vote on the recommendations at this meeting.  Nor am I
addressing any of the concerns expressed by ICANN staff.  I am not asking
about that because in my view that is not the job of the Drafting Team to
address those questions, but rather the Council.    If they are not happy
with the process, they can choose to address.  Our job as the drafting team
was to take the GAC proposal, evaluate it and provide substantive
recommendations to the GNSO Council for their interactions with the GAC.  

 

In other words, I am not asking for an opinion on whether there should be
one or more public comment periods, whether you believe we need to provide
additional rationale to the ICANN staff or Board, etc.  Those are important
questions for the Council to consider.  But I am asking that all other
things being equal, do you support the substance of the recommendations
themselves.  I will note that on the last call and the call with the GAC
(and from re-reading the transcript) it appeared to me there was at least a
rough consensus, but I want to re-ask the question. 

 

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL WITH A YES OR NO, AND IF NO, THE RATIONALE.

 

The recommendations are:

 

Recommendation 1:    Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as
"Modified Reserved Names," meaning: 
 

a)               The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings
to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective
components, as applicable.  

 

b)               Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by
the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to
determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An
application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a
Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.  

 

c)               If an application fails to pass initial string similarity
review: 

 

                                            i.                        And
the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names
(e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other
than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. 

 

                                          ii.                        If the
applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but
fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names,
the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 

 

1.      Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as
applicable; or

 

2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:
                    

a.      claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate
the basis for this claim; and

b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar
to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to
the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

 

3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision
(ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties
from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the
determination.

 

4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection
by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to
(ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the
applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

 

Recommendation 2:    Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as
Feasible

 

            The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be
protected in multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in
languages used on the Internet.The lists of protected names that the IOC and
RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive."
Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that the lists provided by
the IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language
on the Internet is not a standard that the Drafting Team believes is
feasible to achieve.  While it is true that the list of languages can be
expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a String Similarity Review
(as recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be
created.  It is the Drafting Team's understanding that representatives from
the IOC and RCRC are working on the creation of that definitive list and
should be able to present that to the Drafting Team by no later than the
ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica.  If such a list can be produced, the Drafting
Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in
the Applicant Guidebook.  

 

            In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the
unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a
language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable,
may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant
Guidebook.

 

Recommendation 3:    Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may
be reviewed after the first round.

                                    

            In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections
for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new
gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent
rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing
this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this
recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also
recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these
protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do
so. 


Thank you in advance.

 

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.