FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[David Cake]

On 02/02/2012, at 5:48 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

	I think, first and foremost, that all of these proposals need to consider the red cross/crescent/star separately to the olympics. Personally, I think the Red Cross etc case is much stronger than the Olympics one, especially as the case as presented in the GAC letter is essentially a deliberate attempt to mislead, based as it is on the Treaty of Nairobi, which covers something entirely different. 

	I think our absolute position should be that the two should be considered separately - the rights granted by international treaty are very different, not just in what words/symbols they cover, but in the details of what rights are granted regarding them.

	Secondly, there are essentially two different aspects here. The first is deciding whether the special rights in the words exist. As I've stated previously, I think Red Cross/etc have a reasonable case based on the Geneva Convention, but I don't think the IOC has a very strong case to international treaty protection of the word Olympic. But the second is determining how those rights are best represented within the domain name system. 

	i think the idea that the exclusive right to use certain strings should translate into NOT being allowed to use those string (but also forbidding them to others) makes limited sense. So this rules out option 2 and option 4a. 

	I think there is no question, considering the numerous organisations with legitimate trademarks on olympic or some variant, that whatever happens, there needs to be an appeals process. Of course, we also need an appeals process to help safeguard legitimate free speech uses of the names etc. But throwing the idea out that we actually are in favour of trademark protection when appropriate isn't a bad one. 

	For the IOC, I think the only reasonable options are 1 and  6b. There are plenty of nations where the word olympic enjoys no special protection, and there is no reason why applicants from those nations should need extra protection. Really, I think the IOC should enjoy no special rights to the words requested. 
	I'd accept 6a for the Red Cross etc.

	Regards

		David

	

> Question 1.  How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round
> 
> GAC Proposal
> 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 2.2.1.2), 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.
> 
> ·        Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal.  This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
> a)       Are not considered “Reserved Names”
> b)      Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
> 
> ·        Option 2:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2.  This means that:
> a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
> b)  applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
> c)        Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
> 
> ·        Option 3:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning:
> a)      The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
> b)      applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
> c)       Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
> 
> ·        Option 4a – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> ·        Option 4b – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
>  
> ·        Option 5a:  Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. 
>  
> ·        Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.
>  
> ·        Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
>  
> ·        Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> 
> Question 2.  Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3?  If yes, which additional languages? 
> a)      Option 1:  No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook
> b)      Option 2:  Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.”
> c)       Option 3:  Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages.
> 
> Question 3.  Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?
>  
> a)       Option 1:  Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
> b)      Option 2:   No, it should only apply to this current round.
> c)       Option 3:  It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds.  We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.
> 
>  
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 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  / 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/20120202/ecdf5c37/attachment-0001.html>