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

[Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff,

A yes from my side also.

As you mention, there may still be some elements for "tweaking" (for 
example, I feel it might be valuable to qualify the circumstances under 
which the ICANN community may chose to review the protections of the 
reserved denominations in time and in substance - e.g. at the conclusion 
of the first round, to review process and procedural issues), and thus 
considering that the legal and policy considerations grounding the 
moratorium will not vary.

Many thanks indeed to you and your colleagues for putting this together.

Looking forward to meeting you in San José, with warm regards,

Stéphane


Stéphane J. Hankins
Legal adviser
Senior policy adviser
Division for coordination and coordination within the Movement
International Committee of the Red Cross
Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19




From:   "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:     "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
"'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   07.03.2012 14:52
Subject:        [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: DT CONSENSUS CALL ON RECOMMENDATIONS 
AT THE TOP LEVEL
Sent by:        owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx



Yes, Jeff. 
 
Sorry for the delayed response as I have been busy supporting the 
employees and volunteers of America Red Cross offer disaster response 
(such as food, shelter and emotional support) to the communities in 
Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana and 
Missouri that were affected by devastating tornados and storms last 
weekend. 
 
Best,
 
Debbie
 
 
 
Debra Y. Hughes 
Senior Counsel 
 
American Red Cross
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.303.5356 (p)
202.303.0143 (f)
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 
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  / 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.
 


<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    p { font-family: Arial;font-size:9pt }
    -->
</STYLE>

</head>
<body>
<hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/>
<p>The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict 
and other situations of violence. Find out more: <a 
href="http://www.icrc.org";>www.icrc.org</a><p>

<p>This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.<br>
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named 
recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended 
recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. 
</p>
<hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/>
</body>
</html>