[gnso-iocrc-dt] CANCELLATION OF IOC/RC CALL

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Given the amount of people that have already expressed apologies for the call 
tomorrow, and the morning's events, I am going to go ahead and cancel the call 
for tomorrow and plan to meet next in Prague at the time indicated on the 
schedule.

In the meantime, I have not gotten any statements or comments on the questions 
sent out on May 31st from the constituencies and/or SGs.  Please come prepared 
to discuss these at Prague.  I will also prepare a summary in advance of Prague 
as to where I believe we are and expected time frames moving forward.

I apologize for the late notice of the cancellation, but I think we need the 
extra time to collect our thoughts.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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/>

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level
• From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:28:20 -0400

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
Description: GAC advice on IOC and Red Cross Sep. 2011.doc

Attachment: IOC AND IRC RESERVATIONS IN NEW GTLDS QUESTIONS AND-ANSWERS.PDF
Description: IOC AND IRC RESERVATIONS IN NEW GTLDS QUESTIONS AND-ANSWERS.PDF

--- End Message ---