ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations

  • To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
  • From: Jean-Louis Ecochard <jecochard@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:32:49 +0000

Cher Alain,

I agree and I am in favor of the proposed PDP route.

But also want to make it clear that we have to represent the needs of all 
non-profits, big and small, members and non-members and that while IRC and IOC 
had the resources to pay attention to the early ICANN texts and hence insert 
their requests for protection by the deadlines, it was not the case of other 
non-profits who either did not know what was happening (and most still don't ) 
or did not have the resources to request protection.

With understanding that the exception process is closed and respecting opinions 
asking no more exception be made, it is nonetheless unfair and unjust that so 
many non-profits brands will risk being co-opted at the gTLD level and thus 
have to potentially spend donor money to making the gTLD right instead of doing 
good. As NGOs are a substantial part of the public good,  it is in the utmost 
interest of the public good to open this exception process broader than IRC and 
IOC's brands to the interest of all NGOs and make it a standard for the 
protection of non-profit brands instead of an exception limited to IRC and IOC.

Jean-Louis Ecochard

From: Alain Berranger 
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:07 PM
To: "npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx>" 
Subject: [npoc-voice] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic 
Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations

Dear NPOC Colleagues,

I do not recall an NPOC consultation on this. Hence, it is not possible to 
refer to an NCSG opposition, but I presume only to an NCUC opposition (although 
I have not followed NCUC on this issue). That said, we at NPOC need to express 
ourselves on this issue. I for one favor the PDP route as an appropriate 
compromise. What say you?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Subject: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red 
Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
To: liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) 
Drafting Team – Recommendations
Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

28 September 2012

Comment Close:

19 October 2012

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Public Comment 

Reply Open:

20 October 2012

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply Close:

9 November 2012

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/>

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:



  *   Top-Level Domains
  *   Second-Level Domains
  *   Policy Process
  *   Intellectual Property

Purpose (Brief):

The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) requests community comment on the latest 
recommendations created for second level protections of names relating to the 
International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.

Current Status:

Open for Public Comment

Next Steps:

The Drafting Team's recommendations will be updated to reflect community 
feedback submitted through this forum and via final agreement of the Drafting 
Team members. Final recommendations will then be presented to the GNSO Council 
for its consideration.

Staff Contact:

Brian Peck, Margie Milam



Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

As a result of IOC/RCRC being granted top level protections for the first round 
of the new gTLD program, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was further tasked to 
consider whether the same protections should be afforded at the second level 
prior to the first delegation of a new gTLD. Since the beginning of 2012, the 
IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) has deliberated about possible second level 
protections and how to respond to the GAC's request for protections. The DT now 
submits the recommendations formulated by the DT and makes them available for 
public comment before final submission to the GNSO Council.

Note from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Chair:
These recommendations are being posted at the request of the Drafting Team. 
Although some members of the Drafting Team believe that a PDP is not necessary 
at this time to grant second level protections for the IOC/RCRC, a consensus of 
the DT does in fact agree that a PDP represents an appropriate compromise on 
this issue. With respect to the Recommendations #2 and #3 (temporary protection 
at second level), there is strong support amongst the Drafting Team for those 
recommendations with opposition from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group and 
Thomas Rickert. A copy of statements from certain constituencies, stakeholder 
groups, and/or individuals is attached as appendices to the recommendations.

Section II: Background

The ICANN Board had requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC 
on whether special protections should be afforded to the RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. 
Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the Board authorized the President 
and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program "which includes the following 
elements: "the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook, subject to the 
revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: ...(b) 
incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross 
and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, 
until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public 

During September 2011, the GAC also sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for 
granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to 
IOC/RCRC at the first level. In the same month, section was added to 
the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated 19 September 2011.

As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO Council created 
a call for volunteers to form a drafting team about creating a response to the 
GAC. The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed has since created a set of 
recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level and 
includes an outline for a response to the GAC from the GNSO. The Drafting Team 
now wishes to solicit feedback from the community prior to submission of the 
recommendations to the GNSO Council.

See the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team page for more detail at: 

Section III: Document and Resource Links

IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Recommendations 
[PDF, 152 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information


(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to 
be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making 
that takes place once this period lapses.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, 
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire 
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit 
de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire 
ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.

This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 
the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other 
than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy