FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on Wednesday

Nicolas Adam nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM
Thu Dec 15 05:08:15 CET 2011

Overall issue:

==> Not an implementation issue. A policy issue. <==

A substantial policy issue, including but not limited to process 
(board--gnso--gac relations). A substantial policy that require us to 
move from the particular to the general.

(Funny thing is people that want implementation badly [thx for the mp3, 
Joy, it stops before it ends though], end up justifying this on the 
basis of a policy rationale, so let us examine the policy rationale. 
Those that say that the board has said so, so it's then implementation 
"by definition" are begging for some process questions to be raised. It 
will be even more funny when they blame us for stalling everything 
because we're process nuts, etc.)

Who knows what I would think after a PDP and careful consideration of 
the issues? But, my preliminary thoughts are that we need a use test, 
rather than reserve lists. Inappropriate uses have appropriate ways to 
be dealt with.


It would almost be comical to grant "strings ineligible for 
registration" status. But except for the irony, I wouldn't be in favor 
of that.

Only the first round. W/r string similarity, i'll see after a Policy 
debate (except the first round, since it's already reserved, so it's ok 
I guess).

BTW, *no one* would have tried to register those as TLDs.


I guess there's no question there needs to be a PDP on that one. Silence 
spoke volumes.

Discussing the latter part of C

"c._Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released_:  What 
would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?"

will be interesting.


On 12/14/2011 5:17 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> Hi all -- am sending the documents relating to this call today which 
> was an informal meeting of GNSO Councillors and other interested 
> persons to discuss the issue of the IOC and Red Cross domain names. 
> The meeting was a preliminary one and agreed to:
> ·Circulate the attached information to our respective stakeholder 
> groups for comment
> ·Have a follow up call (tentatively scheduled for Jan 11^th )
> ·Provide a short update at the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow to the 
> effect that the meeting had taken place so that GAC can be kept 
> advised of progress and likely timeframes for response
> Your comments on the questions would of course be welcome, 
> particularly whether this a policy issue or one of implementation of a 
> Board decision. While there were different views on this it was agreed 
> that further information was needed to answer that question and Jeff 
> Neuman (Chair) agreed to follow that up.
> It was agreed that others can join the meetings (and quite a few did 
> so). There was some discussion of whether, if the IOC and Red Cross 
> names would otherwise succeed in an objection process, there was any 
> harm in putting variations of these in the reserved list or including 
> as part of a string similarity review. No decisions were made, but 
> some points of view were exchanged.
> I will circulate the links to the transcript of the meeting once this 
> becomes available. Comments and questions would be very welcome.
> Regards
> Joy
> *From:*owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 December 2011 5:04 p.m.
> *To:* gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on 
> Wednesday
> All,
> In advance of the call, I am resending around the documents sent to us 
> by the GAC on their proposal with respect to the handling of IOC and 
> Red Cross domain names at both the top and second levels.   In 
> addition, I have attached a list of questions we can choose to discuss.
> _Overall Issue_:
> a)Do we believe this issue is one of implementation (as the GAC has 
> interpreted), or is this an issue of policy?
> b)Should these marks be protected at all?  Pros vs. Cons? /(NOTE:  
> This item's discussion can take up the entire call, but I do not want 
> to dwell on this given the number of subjects.  What I would like to 
> do is spend no more than 15 minutes on this subject listing the 
> arguments for and against.  Of course we will allow anyone to submit 
> comments via e-mail on this subject after the call for evaluation).  I 
> am not trying to suppress any discussion on this, but given that we 
> spent almost all of the Council discussions in Dakar on this question 
> alone and did not have much time to discuss the other questions, I 
> want us to be able to get on to the other questions. /
> __
> *_Top Level Protection_*
> At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross 
> terms like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook 
> (Section, extending those terms to multiple languages and 
> receiving consideration during the String Similarity review.  Right 
> now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled 
> "Strings Ineligible for Registration" and would not invoke String 
> Similarity Review.
> _Questions:_
> a) Should the reservation be permanent or just apply during the first 
> round?
> b)Should terms in this round and beyond receive consideration during 
> string similarity review?
> c)Should reservation in this round and beyond extend to additional 
> languages?
> *_Second Level Protections_*
> With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend 
> the new gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level 
> reserved names. The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth 
> in Schedule A attached to their proposal.    They recommend the 
> identical terms be protected in the 6 UN languages with an 
> "encouragement" to registries to provide additional languages.
> _Questions___
> a.Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second 
> level in all new gTLDs?
> b.If so, what type of reserved name would this be?
> i.A "forbidden name" that can never be registered (not even by those 
> organizations) -- NOTE /The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they 
> want./
> ii.Like a 2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also 
> propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of 
> measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes.
> iii.Like a _Country or Territory Names,_ which are initially reserved, 
> but the reservation of specific country and territory names may be 
> released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with 
> the applicable government(s), provided, further, that Registry 
> Operator may also propose release of these reservations, subject to 
> review by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.
> c._Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released_:  What 
> would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?
> Any other questions or topics?
> Thanks!
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> *Office:***+1.571.434.5772*Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079*Fax: 
> *+1.703.738.7965*/*jeff.neuman at neustar.biz 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> */*www.neustar.biz 
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111214/cd4522c4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list