[gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level
All,
In thinking about what we should be asking our SGs and constituencies to
comment on, it occurred to me that all of the questions posed by Chuck were
contained in the original note I sent back in late February which I still
believes contains the relevant questions / options. I have supplemented
Question 1 with part (iii) that comes from Avri's note. Please note that this
set of questions is a guideline. Constituencies/SGs/ACs can answer these
questions or provide feedback in whatever form is deemed appropriate. This
includes comments on the process we are using. But please provide a rationale
for the responses.
Avri - some of the questions you posed were philosophical or ones I though
could be addressed in your feedback or by the GNSO Council (through its reps).
Just wasn't sure how to ask them here.
Thanks!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I. GAC PROPOSALS AT THE SECOND LEVEL
With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the new
gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved names.
The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A attached to
their proposal. They recommend the identical terms be protected in the 6 UN
languages with an "encouragement" to registries to provide additional
languages. Please note that the GAC in their Q&A document did not ask to
protect "similar" strings to the terms in Schedule A, but only identical
matches.
Questions
1. Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level
in all new gTLDs?
i. Option
1: No, there should be no change to the schedule of second-level reserved
names currently in the new gTLD Registry Agreement.
ii. Option 2:
Yes, we should change the schedule of second-level reserved names currently in
the new gTLD Registry Agreement to include:
1. Option 2(a)(i): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the
6 UN languages
2. Option 2(a)(ii): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A
in the 6 UN languages
3. Option 2(b)(i): All of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6
UN languages
4. Option 2(b)(ii): A subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in
the 6 UN languages
5. Option 2(c): All of the RCRC and IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in
the 6 UN languages
6. Option 2(d): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6
UN languages, but only a subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the
6 UN languages.
7. Option 2(e): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in
the 6 UN languages, but all of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6
UN languages.
iii. If we
adopt any of the Option 2 responses, then what benchmarks are we using to
justify protections for these two organizations as opposed to the others that
may have asked for protections and may be subject to the future proposed PDP.
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND QUESTIONS ON #1
* If we were to select any of the options involving a subset of terms, we would
then need to consider which of the terms
**All of the options above, I have included the 6 UN languages, but of course
we can consider protecting just a subset of those languages as well.
***The question posed above talks about protecting in ALL new gTLDs, but are
there any new gTLDs in which these protections should not apply
2. If we have selected any option above that allows for the protection of
either or both of the IOC or RCRC terms (or just a subset of those terms) what
type of reserved name would this be?
i. Option
1: The reserved names should be treated as "forbidden names" that can never be
registered (not even by those organizations) - NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said
this is not what they want.
ii. Option 2:
The reserved names should be treated as "modified forbidden names" that can
only be registered by the applicable organizations or their component parts.
iii. Option 3:
Like a 2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose
release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid
confusion with the corresponding country codes. In this case, the Registry
Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its implementation
of measures to avoid confusion with the IOC or the RCRC as applicable.
iv. Option 4:
Like Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the
reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the
extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable
government(s.. In this case, the IOC/RCRC terms would be initially reserved,
but the reservation of the IOC/RCRC terms may be released to the extent that
Registry Operator reached agreement with the IOC and/or RCRC as applicable.
3. If we have chosen either option ii, iii or iv for Question 2, what
would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list for such option?
NOTE, I HAVE NOT LAID OUT THE OPTIONS YET FOR THIS ONE AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
THEM. IF AND WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ADDRESS, OPTIONS WILL BE CRAFTED.
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.
Attachment:
GAC advice on IOC and Red Cross Sep. 2011.doc Attachment:
IOC AND IRC RESERVATIONS IN NEW GTLDS QUESTIONS AND-ANSWERS.PDF |