[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to respond to GAC proposal

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Kiran for the feedback.  There are some in the RySG who believe there 
are holes in the GAC rationale that still need to be addressed.  As just one 
example, it was pointed out that different jurisdictions apply the 
international treaties regarding IOC names in different ways and hence have 
different exceptions.  My understanding is that in the U.S. there are 
exceptions for organizations located west of the Olympic mountains; that of 
course, wouldn't apply to other jurisdictions.  How would international law be 
applied in local jurisdictions that have varying national laws?

I agree with you that the GNSO should not abdicate its responsibilities and the 
correct way to avoid that is via a PDP.  At the same time, there are some in 
the RySG that might be okay with a round 1 solution if their lingering concerns 
are addressed.

Chuck

From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jim Bikoff; David Heasley
Subject: RE: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to respond to GAC 
proposal

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for soliciting feedback from the RySG about these options. We are 
pleased to hear that there is support for 3(a) amongst the RySG. It remains our 
opinion that 3(a) would best protect the Olympic words in new gTLDs, while 
providing exceptions that allow applicants with a legitimate interest in the 
Olympic words to obtain registrations.

In regard to your other option, we believe that the GAC has already called for 
protection of the Olympic and Red Cross names, has provided the legal 
justification to do so, and has given the Drafting Team the mandate of 
fulfilling this task. In accordance with its mandate, the Discussion Group has 
addressed the rationales you list ("filling in the holes" as you put it), and 
has been developing appropriate options, such as 3(a). There is no good reason 
to return the issue to the GAC, as that would only delay the Discussion Group's 
discharge of its mandate.

As the New gTLD Committee of the Board stated in its recent progress report, 
the appropriate course is for the Board to leave the issue of second-level 
protection in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. The GNSO, as a 
policy-making body, should have the benefit of the Discussion Group's 
deliberations, and not an abdication of its responsibilities.

Best regards,

Kiran

Kiran J. Malancharuvil
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
202-944-3307 (office)
619-972-7810 (mobile)

This message from the law firm of Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP may contain 
confidential or privileged information. If you received this transmission in 
error, please call us immediately at (202) 944-3307 or contact us by e-mail at 
kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>. Disclosure or use of 
any part of this message by persons other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:47 PM
To: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to 
respond to GAC proposal
There has been a lot of discussion about the various IOC/RC Discussion Group 
approaches in the RySG the past several weeks including in the last two 
teleconference meetings.  In the meeting today, a somewhat new approach gained 
quite a bit of traction and I will try to describe it here:

a.      Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 1 is the GNSO's 
starting position for second-level names in the first round of new gTLDs: 
"Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the 
RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level 
reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement)."

b.      Provide a rationale for this position

*        Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the 
following:

                                                    i.     Reserving names for 
the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of 
other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a 
commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names 
would be reserved.

                                                   ii.     Lots of input has 
been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of 
organizations could be sufficiently narrow.

                                                  iii.     National laws vary 
regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances 
about what exceptions are made.

                                                  iv.     Existing rights 
protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other 
organizations who have rights to names.

                                                   v.     Reserving the finite 
list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to 
include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic 
from an operational and policy perspective.

                                                  vi.     There are 
organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the 
GAC recommended strings.

                                                vii.     The complexities of 
this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up 
PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be 
able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.

*        The work of the IOC/RC discussion group should be reviewed to identify 
other reasons.

*        The RySG is ready and willing to contribute to better refining the 
rational if there is support for this approach.

c.      Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the 
rationale (i.e., 'fill in the holes').
Many in the RySG would not be disappointed if, even without a PDP, the above 
resulted in a GNSO recommendation of Discussion Group Approach 3.a:  "Develop 
recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending 
protection for all of the GAC recommended IOC and RCRC names provided there is 
an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances."  But 
we believe that justification for doing it based on current information has too 
many weaknesses at this time.
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:07 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to 
respond to GAC proposal

Please find attached an updated, corrected version of the document provided 
below reflecting Avri's earlier message regarding some initial input from the 
NCSG.


------ Forwarded Message
From: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:58:16 -0700
To: "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to respond to GAC proposal

To all DT members:

Please find attached a document that was prepared for and discussed during 
today's IOC/RCRC Drafting Team call.  This document briefly summarizes a list 
of possible approaches that have been proposed to date within the DT for moving 
forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and IOC names at 
the second level in new gTLDS, as well as some initial comments received 
regarding this list of approaches which was sent to the group on 18 July.

Please not that this current draft is what was prepared and posted for today's 
call and is being provided so that you can go back to your individual groups 
and solicit comments on which approach(es) your group would support as a way 
for the DT to move forward.  This draft does not include comments that were 
raised during the call, we ask that any comments representing your individual 
groups be shared and sent via email to the list.

This is a fluid document and we will be periodically updating and distributing 
it with any submitted comments on the individual proposed approaches prior to 
the next scheduled call on 15 August.  Thanks.

Best Regards,

Brian

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN



------ End of Forwarded Message