<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Here are my comments, indented in the DT chair's unofficial status
report. I am tempted to let it to our representatives whose
hard-work and knowledge have earned my respect to use and transform
these comment as they see fit, including the possibility of ignoring
them altogether. <br>
<br>
With apologies for length. If you have read the DT's report, you may
safely skip to the indented parts.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">During its June 20, 2011 meeting in
Singapore, the ICANN Board of Directors adopted a <br>
resolution providing for “incorporation of text concerning
protection for specific requested Red <br>
Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial
application round, until the GNSO <br>
and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public
interest.”2<br>
<br>
<br>
The ICANN Board resolution directed the GNSO Council and the GAC
to work together <br>
to develop policy advice for permanently protecting the Olympic
and Red Cross names at the top <br>
and second levels of an expanded domain name system.</blockquote>
<br>
How did the "developing of policy advice based on the global public
interest" came to mean "develop[ing] policy advice for permanently
protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second
levels of an expanded domain name system"? <br>
<br>
Understanding the need that the GNSO and the GAC have to work
together, preferably in a manner that would suggest that it could
conceivably be repeatable and that would put forth both parties good
faith, there still need to be sound rationale/basis for the output,
couched in a "global public interest" language, for the foundation
of this advice-making dialogue to be both constructive and
legitimate.<br>
<br>
Logical hiatuses of the <i>non sequitur </i> or<i> </i><i>ignoratio
elenchi </i>variety (e.g. in this case, ignoring the question of
the proper policy advice which would purport to best serve global
public interest by implying peremptorily that one's preferred
solution is the only conceivable one) are not sound dialogue
foundations for GAC-gNSO relationships going forward. The ease with
which GAC's views are seemingly forced upon gNSO without so much as
an attempt at generalized justification for the reservation of the
strings does not bode well for future GAC-gNSO relationships. Nor
are they sound internal gNSO practices to entrench. In due term,
especially with actors that have recurring interactions, they are
inevitably counterproductive and deleterious.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Pursuant to the Board resolution, <br>
ICANN counsel and staff have implemented Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the
Applicant Guidebook, which <br>
temporarily prevents new gTLD applicants from registering certain
Olympic and Red Cross <br>
names at the top level during the initial gTLD application round.
<br>
<br>
B) GAC Proposal <br>
On September 14, 2011, a proposal was sent from the GAC to the
GNSO Council <br>
regarding a proposal for the protection of certain International
Olympic Committee (“IOC“) and <br>
Red Cross/Red Crescent (“RCRC“) names.<br>
3<br>
The proposal was followed up with a discussion <br>
between the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN meeting in Dakar and
a Question and <br>
Answer document addressing some of the issues with respect to the
protection of these names at <br>
the top and second levels. As a result of those discussions, the
GNSO Council created an <br>
informal drafting team open to both Councilors and interested
members of the community to <br>
assist the GNSO Council in developing its own set of
recommendations. The drafting team has <br>
met bi-weekly since December and maintains a publicly-available
e-mail archive at <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/</a>
(“Drafting Team”). In addition, representatives from <br>
the IOC and the RCRC movement have also been actively
participating in the group. A full list <br>
of participants on the Drafting Team is attached as Appendix 1. </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">C) Activities of the Drafting Team. <br>
The issues presented to the Drafting Team by the GAC Proposal
involved significant <br>
questions of implementation both at the top and second levels. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
There is no record of a mandate or community recommendation to the
effect that the need to develop joint GAC-gNSO policy advice to the
board necessitates incorporating language into the guidebook that
would
purport to implement permanent protection of submitted strings in
the top and second level domains. But "implementation" is casually
dropped for the second time, both times in a rhetorical manner.
While it might have been the opinion of some in the drafting team
that such was the proper policy road to take, this process cannot be
thought to be an adequate substitute for bottom-up gNSO
recommendation processes. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Given the fact that the <br>
application window for the top-level opened on January 12, 2012
and is set to close on April 12, <br>
2012, if any new protections were to be proposed at the top level,
those recommendations need <br>
to be approved by the ICANN Board of Directors with sufficient
time to provide notice, <br>
predictability and transparency to current applicants in this
first round. Conversely, although <br>
there is a need to evaluate whether to create additional
protections at the second level, such <br>
protections would not need to be finalized until the first new
gTLD Registry Agreement is <br>
executed. The earliest this is expected to occur is Q1 2013.
Thus, until this week, the Drafting <br>
Team decided to focus exclusively initially on protections at the
top-level, to be followed by <br>
evaluation of the issues pertaining to protections at the
second-level. </blockquote>
<br>
Given the high level of opposition to the opinion that seem to be
that of some in the drafting team, at least with regard NCSG, it is
the council's responsibility to not <i>ignore what other
policy-advice there could logically be</i> (the <i>ignoratio
elenchi</i> rhetorical-political ploy) with regard the task that
the Board entrusted the gNSO. The unofficial status report
half-concede for half a sentence this possibility. Even it can not
hide the n<i>on sequitur</i> nature of its stance for a full 6
pages. The presumption that the <i>ignoratio elenchi </i>is an
acceptable way to go about debating in the gNSO, perhaps for what
are thought to be pragmatic purposes, is a misguided one. Time
constraints are a valid concern, and the decision to focus on only
the top level at this time is a wise and pragmatic one, a decision
that should not eschew proper consideration of the substantive
issues at stake.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">D) Next Steps <br>
We are currently soliciting feedback from the Drafting Team and
GNSO Community <br>
regarding the Drafting Team recommendations at the top level and
are also seeking to get <br>
feedback from the GAC in Costa Rica. Assuming that a consensus is
reached in the Drafting <br>
Team and Council that is also supported by the GAC, we will strive
to hold a GNSO Council <br>
vote in Costa Rica on the recommendations to send to the ICANN
Board. We are also working <br>
on obtaining the definitive list of translations as stated above. </blockquote>
<br>
Sidestepping the debates is no way to obtain a consensus, rough or
otherwise. Never once were the GAC justifications to the effect that
the entities in question deserved special status was debated on in
the gNSO community or in joint manner with the GAC. If it would have
been debated, it could have been shown that the list of strings for
which a special status is sought would be deserving of such status
or not, and sound rationale could have been provided with regard
whatever policy advice gNSo would have felt entitled to negotiate
with the GAC and recommend to the Board. <br>
<br>
Some other important substantive axis could have been discussed and
debated that could have borne an impact on the nature of gNSO-GAC
negociation and ultimately, joint advice to the Board. It could have
been shown that GAC-gNSO historic relationships needed mending,
needed special nudging, needed careful consideration of the laying
down of dialogue foundations, or other such considerations. While
the stakeholder groups and constituencies of the gNSO are in part
composed of passionate people with diversified interests, it is not
the belief of this commenter that they collectively hold no wisdom
or that they can not be convinced to water-down some principled
positions on the behalf of the Supporting Organization's unity going
forward. The refusal to engage issues is deleterious to the gNSO
itself, and to the relationship it purportedly seek to establish or
mend with the GAC and/or the Board. It set itself squarely on a
track that invites politicization and manipulation of its
diversified interests by refusing to engage in the (perhaps
laborious but necessary) task of substantive consensus-building.
While these are sound advice for any type of gNSO-activity, in the
present instance, the gNSO mandated task critically called for
rationales building upon the concept of the global public interest.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> PROTECTIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL <br>
In the current version of the Applicant Guidebook, Section
2.2.1.2.3 extends limited <br>
protections to identical matches of certain IOC and RCRC terms at
the top-level. However, this <br>
Section does not provide for protections of the IOC or RCRC in all
foreign languages, nor does it <br>
invoke “String Similarity Review”, for strings that may be
confusingly similar at the top level, <br>
such as “.olympics, .olympix, .redkross, .redkresent, etc.). In
addition, the current Applicant <br>
Guidebook would not only prevent third parties from applying for
the IOC or RCRC terms, but it <br>
would also not allow the IOC or RCRC to obtain these strings
should they desire to do so. <br>
<br>
The Drafting Team considered a number of different options with
respect to protections <br>
of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level ranging from
recommending no changes to <br>
the current implementation mechanisms in the Guidebook, to the
adoption of the GAC Proposal <br>
as is. Although no option is technically off the table, it is
expected that the Drafting Team will <br>
reach at least a rough consensus in recommending to the GNSO
Council the following, which <br>
has been under discussion for the past several weeks. <br>
<br>
Recommendation 1: Treat the terms set forth in Section
2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified <br>
Reserved Names,” meaning: <br>
<br>
a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to
the <br>
International Olympic Committee (hereafter the “IOC”),
International <br>
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their <br>
respective components, as applicable. <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than
those applied for by the IOC or <br>
RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to
determine <br>
whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An <br>
application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly
similar to a <br>
Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. <br>
<br>
c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity
review: <br>
<br>
i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the
Modified <br>
Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be <br>
registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as <br>
applicable. <br>
<br>
ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the
Modified <br>
Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with
one <br>
of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to <br>
override the string similarity failure by: <br>
<br>
1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as
<br>
applicable; or <br>
<br>
2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant
must: <br>
<br>
a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and <br>
demonstrate the basis for this claim; and <br>
b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not <br>
confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and <br>
makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC <br>
or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. <br>
<br>
3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above <br>
provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC <br>
or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights <br>
objection or otherwise contesting the determination. <br>
<br>
4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-<br>
objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has <br>
been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the <br>
IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable <br>
Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD <br>
applications. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There seem to be intent from some on the drafting team to impose
rough consensus on substantive policy details by sheer virtue of
(presumed) single majority. While NCSG critics of the substantive
policy position proposed in the unofficial report ― to date, NCSG
overwhelmingly disapprove of the rationale brought forward cursorily
(implied, really) for special string considerations ― would
presumably have been pliable to some kind of concessions, it appears
that the drafting team has chosen a tyranny-of-the-majority way of
thinking about consensus-building. <br>
<br>
The substantive proposal puts forward an unprecedented level of
control over potentially legitimate applications in the hands of IOC
and RCRC, without so much as providing any kind of rationale that
would purport to constrain future like-demands; it furthermore does
not seem to preclude monetary compensations for the acquisition of
an exemption under ii(1), nor does it provide benchmark that would
guide the reception of a potentially legitimate applciation under
the terms set forth in ii(2). Interestingly, ii(2) asks of
potentially legitimate application to do a demonstration which was
not asked of the IOC or the RCRC. If one extrapolates the rationale
behind the proposed recommendation to the criteria needed to
demonstrate a legitimate interest under ii(2), one would conclude
that approval is dependent upon political alliance of an unspecified
sort.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC
Terms in as many Languages as Feasible <br>
<br>
The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC “names should be
protected in multiple <br>
languages—all translations of the listed names in languages used
on the Internet…The lists of <br>
protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are
illustrative and representative, not <br>
exhaustive.” Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion
that the lists provided by the <br>
IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every
language on the Internet is not a <br>
standard that the Drafting Team believes is feasible to achieve.
While it is true that the list of <br>
languages can be expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a
String Similarity Review (as <br>
recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must
be created. It is the Drafting <br>
Team’s understanding that representatives from the IOC and RCRC
are working on the creation <br>
of that definitive list and should be able to present that to the
Drafting Team by no later than the <br>
ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica. If such a list can be produced, the
Drafting Team may <br>
recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently
in the Applicant Guidebook. <br>
<br>
In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the
unlikely event that a third party <br>
applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not
contained on the list, the IOC or <br>
RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set
forth in the Applicant <br>
Guidebook. <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Recommendation 3: Protections should apply
for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after <br>
the first round. <br>
<br>
In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections
for the IOC and RCRC <br>
should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but
should be a permanent protection <br>
afforded for all subsequent rounds. Although, the Drafting Team
has not spent a lot of time <br>
discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is
making this recommendation as one <br>
intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that
like all other aspects of the new <br>
gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN
community should it desire to <br>
do so. </blockquote>
<br>
If for no other reason that to have found out that there is indeed
sizable disagreement in the gNSO community with regard the blanket
exemptions and unprecedented level of control afforded in the
unofficial recommendation, then the drafting team has served its
purpose. There is no justification for returing later to the
community alluded to in the unofficial report's third recommendation
if the community wants to review the recommendations prior to
affording them. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">FUTURE WORK: PROTECTIONS AT THE SECOND
LEVEL <br>
<br>
Going into Costa Rica and beyond, the Drafting Team understands
that it will need to focus on <br>
protections at the second-level to see if it can find consensus
within the group on the GAC <br>
proposals. With respect to second-level names, it is the
Drafting Team’s belief that the GAC <br>
requests that ICANN amend the new gTLD Registry Agreement to add a
new schedule of <br>
second-level reserved names. The new schedule should reserve those
terms set forth in Schedule <br>
A attached to the GAC proposal and should include that the
identical terms be protected in the 6 <br>
UN languages with an “encouragement” to registries to provide
additional languages. <br>
<br>
It is the Drafting Team’s expectation that that the following
questions will need to be addressed <br>
by the Drafting Team in order to provide recommendations on the
second level: <br>
<br>
1. Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the
second level in all <br>
new gTLDs? 5 <br>
<br>
2. If the Drafting Team supports the notion of reserving IOC or
RCRC names at the <br>
second level, what type of reserved name would this be? <br>
<br>
i. Option 1: The reserved names should be treated as “forbidden
names” <br>
that can never be registered (not even by those organizations) <br>
<br>
ii. Option 2: The reserved names should be treated as “modified
forbidden <br>
names” that can only be registered by the applicable organizations
or their <br>
component parts. <br>
<br>
iii. Option 3: Like a 2 letter country code where the Registry
Operator may <br>
also propose release of these reservations based on its
implementation of <br>
measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes.
In this <br>
case, the Registry Operator may propose release of these
reservations <br>
based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with
the IOC <br>
or the RCRC as applicable. <br>
<br>
iv. Option 4: Like Country or Territory Names, which are
initially reserved, <br>
but the reservation of specific country and territory names may be
released <br>
to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the
applicable <br>
government(s). In this case, the IOC/RCRC terms would be
initially <br>
reserved, but the reservation of the IOC/RCRC terms may be
released to <br>
the extent that Registry Operator reached agreement with the IOC
and/or <br>
RCRC as applicable. <br>
<br>
3. If the Drafting Team chooses either option ii, iii or iv for
Question 2, what would <br>
be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list for such
option? <br>
<br>
It is the goal of the Drafting Team to have its work completed on
the second level protections by <br>
the ICANN meeting in Prague in order to be able to implement
changes, if any, to the new gTLD <br>
Registry Agreement prior to any new gTLD Registry Operator having
to execute such an <br>
Agreement with ICANN. </blockquote>
<br>
In the spirit of this commentary, the drafting team or some other
gNSO organ, should spend some time pondering upon the first question
and providing a rationale for an ultimate recommendation on SLDs.
How can a list of options be presented under question 2 that does
not presume of a rationale and an answer to question 1? Again, this
would be policy advice that would peremptorily *imply* a rationale,
which is the worst sort of <i>ignoratio elenchi </i>with regard
possible precedent-setting as well as internal SO's relationships.<br>
<br>
― end of comments ― <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/29/2012 6:13 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>
wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4E6ACF0200005B000863E0@smtp.law.unh.edu"
type="cite">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <font face="Lucida
Grande" size="3">Sometimes being a pest (meaning me, not KK!)
pays (some) dividends - the most recent responses to my
querulous behavior on the Council list would indicate that
while the Drafting Team's Status Report will NOT be put out
for formal public comment (since it is a summary drafted by
the Chair rather than an official report from the whole DT),
still (1) the DT would like feedback now about its
recommendations; and (2) the finalized list of
recommendations, which will be created after the Friday call
among the DT, the GAC and the GNSO Council, should be put out
for formal public comment, as is usually done with all GNSO
working group and other community reports.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <font face="Lucida
Grande" size="3">This still means a very short time available
for public comment before the Costa Rica meeting, where the
GNSO Council will be asked to vote on the recommendations. As
such, I still urge members who believe either the status
report and/or ultimately the final recommendations do not
represent community consensus or a sound approach to voice
their comments, initially through our DT and Council members
and subsequently during the formal public comment period.</font>
</p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <font face="Lucida
Grande" size="3">Thanks and cheers</font> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <font face="Lucida
Grande" size="3">Mary</font><br>
<br>
<font style="font-size: 12pt" face="Lucida Grande"><br>
Mary W S Wong
<br>
Professor of Law
<br>
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
<br>
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
<br>
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White
StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone:">mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone:</a>
1-603-513-5143Webpage: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected</a>
writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a>
<br>
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has
affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now
known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please
note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the
convention: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu">firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu</a>.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School
of Law, please visit law.unh.edu <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>>>> </p>
<table style="margin-left: 15px; margin-right: 0; margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0; font-size: 1em" bgcolor="#f3f3f3" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px #050505; padding-left:
7px">
<table style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-family:
Lucida Grande; font-size: 12pt" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <b>From:
</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
Konstantinos Komaitis <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK"><k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK></a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <b>To:</b>
</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu"><NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <b>Date:
</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
2/29/2012 5:58 PM </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> <b>Subject:
</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> Re:
[NCSG-Discuss] Proposed protections for IOC/RC
names </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0"> Apologies
for the cross posting of the email regarding the IO–
long day here :)<br>
<br>
The issue of the public comment has been discussed and
there was some support. I will continue to insist on
this for the simple reason that this process has
already been sidetracked in many other procedural
aspects. We need to maintain at the very least the
opportunity of the community to provide its feedback.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
KK<br>
<br>
From: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU"><mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU></a>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU"><mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU></a>><br>
Reply-To: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU"><mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU></a>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU"><mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU></a>><br>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:57:09 +0000<br>
To: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>><br>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed protections for
IOC/RC names<br>
<br>
<br>
All, as you know, the Drafting Team (DT) on which
Konstantinos, Joy and a few other NCSG members
participated has just released a Status Report on its
work, preparatory to the call tomorrow with interested
members of the GAC and GNSO Council.<br>
<br>
<br>
As a Council member, I asked if the Report will be put
out officially for public comment, prior to the
Council being asked to vote on it in Costa Rica in a
couple of weeks. Given the urgency of the issue and
the lack of time between now and then, there isn't
likely to be a formal public comment period. Instead,
the time between now and the Costa Rica meeting is
being regarded as the "functional equivalent" of a
formal public comment period. It's possible that some
fuss can be made about the procedural inadequacy of
this, or even about whether the Council ought to vote,
but even so, that's not likely to delay or change
things as they stand.<br>
<br>
<br>
Given the level of interest amongst our members in the
topic, and the number of strong views that have been
expressed, I would recommend that individual members,
and/or each Constituency, and/or the SG as a whole,
consider sending comments on the Report. I will find
out if an ICANN public comment email address can be
set up quickly to receive these comments.<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm attaching the DT's Status Report to this post (if
the listserv will let me :)<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Mary<br>
<br>
<br>
Mary W S Wong<br>
Professor of Law<br>
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP<br>
Chair, Graduate IP Programs<br>
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White
StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone">mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone"><mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone></a>:
1-603-513-5143Webpage: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected</a> writings
available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a><br>
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has
affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is
now known as the University of New Hampshire School of
Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed
and now follow the convention: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu">firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu"><mailto:firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu></a>.
For more information on the University of New
Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu<br>
<br>
<br>
>>><br>
<br>
From:<br>
<br>
<br>
Konstantinos Komaitis <<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK">k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK"><mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK></a>><br>
<br>
<br>
To:<br>
<br>
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Date:<br>
<br>
<br>
2/26/2012 5:57 AM<br>
<br>
<br>
Subject:<br>
<br>
<br>
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE
COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***<br>
<br>
<br>
I would really hope so and this is certainly how this
group started operating. Now, of course, the DT is
running out time and I am not sure. I have sent a note
to the DT with this question and get back to you<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
KK<br>
<br>
From: "Avri org>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a>><br>
Reply-To: "Avri org>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a>><br>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:21:35 +0000<br>
To: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>><br>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR
IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON
LANGUAGE***<br>
<br>
hi,<br>
<br>
A process question:<br>
<br>
Will this stuff be going out for community comment
before the g-council presumes to vote on it?<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 25 Feb 2012, at 05:51, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:<br>
<br>
Please see the email below, regarding what will be
presented to the a call that has been scheduled
between this DT and the GNSO and members of the GAC
next week. This option appears to be receiving rough
consensus, despite all efforts. I am still to hear
about the process regarding the letter of
non-objection which is crucial, and in particular
whether the IOC will be imposing fees when allowing
another entity to use a similar name!!!!! The Red
Cross has said they will not.<br>
Thanks<br>
KK<br>
From: Jeff Neuman
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us"><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us"><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us"><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us></a>><br>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:26:10 +0000<br>
To: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org">gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a>"
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org">gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org"><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org></a>><br>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:
OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***<br>
All,<br>
In line with Steve’s suggestion, I am freezing the
language on Option 7 as is with the suggested changes
from Lanre and Greg. We could probably word smith
this forever. Please consider this the final version
for seeking input and for raising during the call with
the GAC next week. In the meantime, in addition to the
status report, I will begin to draft the straw man of
options for the second level.<br>
*******************************************************************<br>
Option 7: Treat the terms set forth in Section
2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified Reserved Names,” meaning:<br>
a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as
gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee
(hereafter the “IOC”), International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their
respective components as applicable.<br>
b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those
applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during
the String Similarity review to determine whether they
are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An
application for a gTLD string that is identified as
too similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass
this initial review.<br>
c) If an application fails to pass initial string
similarity review:<br>
i. And the
applied-for TLD identically matches any of the
Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or
".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other
than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.<br>
ii. If the
applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the
Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string
similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names,
the applicant may attempt to override the string
similarity failure by:<br>
1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC
or the RCRC, as applicable; or<br>
2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection,
the applicant must:<br>
a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the
string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and<br>
b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is
not confusingly similar to one of the protected
strings and makes evident that it does not refer to
the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent
activity.<br>
3. A determination in favor of the applicant
under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not
preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties
from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise
contesting the determination.<br>
4. The existence of a TLD that has received a
letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to
(ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2)
shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one
of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round
of new gTLD applications.<br>
Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs<br>
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166<br>
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax:
+1.703.738.7965 / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz"><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz"><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz"><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz></a>
/ <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.neustar.biz/">http://www.neustar.biz/</a>><br>
________________________________<br>
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.<br>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>