<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] DT CONSENSUS CALL ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] DT CONSENSUS CALL ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:16:30 -0500
Yes, I support these recommendations.
I still do not believe that the first-level
protection is really needed, given that the
chances of someone spending $185k to try to
capture one of these names fraudulently is (in my
opinion) small, and the various comment and
objection processes should cover any that do try.
However, given that the Board/staff HAS inserted
this protection into the AG, I believe that it should be done properly.
Alan
At 06/03/2012 09:58 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
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
languagesall 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
Teams 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 / 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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|