[gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Latest IOC/RCRC Recommendations Draft (of 20 Sept 2012)

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

Forwarding to the official list as I am not sure this got posted.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: Stephane Hankins [mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:04 PM
To: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Hughes, Debra Y.
Subject: Latest IOC/RCRC Recommendations Draft (of 20 Sept 2012)

Dear Jeff and all members of the drafting group,

Thank you your message and for the attached proposal.

In view of today’s conference call, I am sending herewith a few brief comments 
from our side on the proposal for our discussion.

1. The Red Cross and Red Crescent has in the past commented on the opportunity 
of a PDP intended to examine the claim for protection of the red cross, red 
crescent and red crystal designations and related denominations (RC/RC names). 
While not expressing as such opposition to PDP, we have notably reminded of the 
paramount global public interest for the protection and reservation of these 
names stemming from compelling and universally agreed norms of international 
humanitarian law, which we feel should of itself allow for a permanent 
reservation to be decided and implemented at both top and second levels. In 
this regard, it should be reminded that this group itself and later the GNSO in 
its motion/recommendation of 26 March 2012 to the Board had recognized the 
legitimacy of adopting a reservation at the top level, albeit for the first 
round of applications only. This itself followed upon ICANN Board's Resolution 
2011.06.20.01 to include a Moratorium for the initial round applications in the 
Applicant Guidebook until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the 
global public interest, as well as the GAC’s own recommendation to the GNSO of 
14 September 2011 that the designations be reserved at the second level through 
the addition of a new schedule of second-level reserved names to the new gTLD 
Registry Agreement.

2. If the agreement of this Group and intended proposal to the GNSO Council is 
now to recommend the initiation of a PDP, albeit on an expedited basis, we 
would like to provide the following comments:

-        Firstly, we take note and appreciate that, following this Group’s most 
recent deliberations, the proposal is made that a “temporary registration 
block” be adopted to cover exact matches of the RC/RC names pending the outcome 
of a PDP or an ICANN Board Resolution. This will indeed ensure that until such 
time as the outcomes of the PDP are known or an ICANN Resolution is adopted, 
the protection and reservation of the designations will be ensured at the 
second level under the new gTLD's.

It is noted however that the wording of the draft's successive Sections does 
not appear to be fully consistent. Hence, while Section 2 recommends a 
temporary reservation of the UN 6 exact matchesof the designations, Section 3 
b) suggests that the GAC will be informed that a temporary block “may” be 
placed, pending ICANN Board approval, on exact matches of IOC/RCRC names 
pending the outcome of a PDP or ICANN Board Resolution. In order to bring both 
provisions in line with one another and to conform with our understanding of 
the conclusions of the discussions held last week, we would recommend that the 
word “may” be deleted from Section 3 b).

For greater clarity, it is also recommended that the draft's language be made 
to more clearly cover the list of reserved designations as defined in the 
Applicant Guidebook.

-        Second, we wish to comment on the issue of the terms of reference 
(brief) and scope of a future PDP if confirmed. The draft recommendation before 
us suggests in its current terms that the IGO Final Issues Report to be 
delivered shortly to the GNSO Council for the possible creation of a PDP to 
address rights protection of Inter-Governmental Organizations should be 
considered by the Board in deliberating on a PDP on the IOC and RC/RC 
designations. While we well understand the linkage between both processes and 
discussions, we would like to reiterate our past recommendation that the case 
for protection of the red cross and red crescent designations be examined on 
its own merits and distinctly from the case of other organisations. Should any 
decision be taken to consider the issues of the protection of the RC/RC 
designations, of IOC names, and potentially of other organizations under one 
PDP consideration, our strong recommendation would thus be that each claim/case 
be clearly distinguished and distinguishable from one another, including within 
any eventual future PDP terms of reference or brief.

-         Lastly, and while not wanting to complicate the discussion any 
further, we would like to recall certain considerations and concerns voiced 
within this Group’s deliberations in the past and which, for some, had been 
included into this Group’s proposal to the GNSO Council and reflected in the 
GNSO recommendation to the Board further to the Costa-Rica Meeting in regard to 
first level applications. While these questions may not indeed require to be 
treated within the proposed recommendation to the GNSO on second level domain 
names, they might still, and we believe usefully, require to be considered in 
the context of any future eventual PDP.

o        The first relates to the opportunity of extending the reservation of 
the designations red cross, red crescent and red crystal designations to their 
translations into multiple languages – thus a recommendation initially tabled 
in light of the requirements of the 1st Geneva Convention of 1949. You will 
recall that a draft table of translations of the designation had in this 
context been produced and shared with this group. The GNSO had it is recalled 
included such a recommendation in its motion to the Board last March.
o        The second refers to the recommendation for a String Similarity Review 
mechanism to cover and prevent the registration of strings confusingly similar 
with the designations at top level. The GNSO had it is recalled included such a 
recommendation in its motion to the Board last March. Should the brief of an 
eventual future PDP be intended to examine the reservation of the designations 
at both top and second levels, it is recommended that the issue be duly 
considered (at least in regard to top level domain names);
o        The third and last issue relates to the preservation of an entitlement 
for the respective components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Movement and for other duly and legally entitled users to register domain names 
including the designations. We note that this question was raised last week in 
this Group’s discussions and in the exchange on this issue today between 
Gregory, Chuck, Osvaldo and Jeff. While reminding that the GNSO had itself 
recommended to the Board last March that such an entitlement (exception) be 
adopted for first level applications in the first round, we would support that 
such an exception be foreseen for top and second level domain names. Should a 
PDP be proposed and agreed upon, we would duly support that such an exception 
to benefit the respective components of the International Red Cross and Red 
Crescent Movement and for other duly entitled users be adopted.

These are the remarks which come to my mind at this stage. We look forward to 
discussing these matters further in today’s Conference Call.

All best regards,

Stéphane

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

The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and 
other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org<http://www.icrc.org>

This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
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.

________________________________