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

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

All:
 
My answer is YES.
 
Greg Shatan
 
Gregory S. Shatan 
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
IP | Technology | Media 
ReedSmithLLP 
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 | Phone
917.816.6428 | Mobile
212.521.5450 | Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:58 PM
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 /
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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