<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Great summarizing and clarifying post. Thank you Andrew.<br>
<br>
But I find that we are being led astray by this piece-meal request
for comment.<br>
<br>
Clearly, what ought to be NCSG's position, as far as i'm concern,
is: <br>
<br>
"tell me <i>the rule you want to use for doing what you want to do</i>,
and we'll tell you if we support it or not".<br>
<br>
We should not be led into arguing over the rule-implications of
piece-meal compromise. We should ask for the rule to be specified. <br>
<br>
I recall we were done this trick when we submitted our charter and
it is only fair game that we return the favor. Oh, and it's also
sensible.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 10/12/2011 11:24 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:201110130324.p9D3OSE9021529@tiassa.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Alain,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are we mainly concerned with second level domain names? as trademarked and/=
or notorious gTLD names are dealt with: if you want to protect a valuable r=
esource such as a name - usually trademarked (say Nobel Prize or Honda or L=
ouis Vuitton or Apple or Red Cross) then the trademark holding body must ap=
ply for a corresponding gTLD, which will be used for primary purposes say j=
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:eanpierre.milan@design.louisvuitton">eanpierre.milan@design.louisvuitton</a>. However, notoriety of a given name may=
not always match the financial robustness needed to apply for a gTLD, but =
that will be the exception, no? I'm not sure though. Is gTLD aiming at a si=
ngle root or a family of similar roots (hence the suggestion to stick to st=
rict international treaties nomenclature which I find interesting but insuf=
ficient)? so what happens to related names such as vuitton or vuitton bags =
or luis vutton... ICANN cannot substitute for INTA, WIPO, etc... it must on=
ly respect INTA, WIPO, etc... rules and regulations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
It appears to me that the ICRC and the IOC are asking for two things and
conflating them as they have done complicates the issues and we should
separate them out in our discussions and any presentations to the GNSO or the
ICANN Board.
1. ICRC and IOC have requested that relevant new gTLDs including their marks
be included on a reserved list and that no one apart from them be allowed to
run them.
Summary: most of us appear to dislike this but there is some (perhaps a
majority) acceptance that it may be politic to allow the ICRC's marks as
specified in the relevant international treaties to be put on the reserved
list, but that no "similarity" clause be allowed - only the exact words in
the international treaties. The IOC appears tohave no relevant mark in the
alphabetic string space alone (only in the graphic mark or the graphic mark
and the string) and thus there appears to be a large majority in favour of
NCSG, or perhaps only NCUC, opposing the claim by the IOC.
2. ICRC and IOC have requested that all applicants for other new gTLDs must
agree to place their marks on reserved lists which they operate.
There appears to be little (though some) support on this list for this being
allowed. For example the free speech implications of a .sucks gTLD banning
ICRC.sucks for a criticism site of the ICRC (no matter how many of us may
feel about the ICRC being a "saintly" organisation preventing criticism from
being easily found an identified is not justifiable for many of us).
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>