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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, all,
my answer is YES.

Thomas


Am 07.03.2012 um 03:58 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> 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 / 
> 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.

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de