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

Fri Feb 3 06:56:43 CET 2012

Thanks KK for picking this up and apologies for the lack of response, I have
been travelling and in extended work meetings. I will however comment on the
detail before Wednesday (not Sunday). It would also be valuable to have
members' views on the issue of the string similarity test and whether this
is appropriate for IOC and RC - the Board decision does not extend this step
in the process to these two names instead protecting exact forms of the
words only. There are some who consider that the string similarity test
should, nonetheless, be applied - what do you think?

Regards

Joy

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012 11:49 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top
Level

Dear all,

As you know, a policy group has been created to discuss the GAC's request
for special protection of the Olympic and Red Cross marks and their
variations. The group came up with a set of questions and possible options
that will be discussing in next week's call. Please note that at this stage
discussions are focusing only at the top level and not the second. 

Can I please ask for your feedback on these possible recommendations? You
all know where I stand on this issue (especially with regards to the OLYMPIC
mark) and I am very annoyed that the Greek GAC rep is not with me on this L

Anyway, the next call is scheduled for next Wednesday and Jeff, chairing the
group, is asking for any comments by Sunday. Apologies for sending this
quite late.

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,

Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses

Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law

University of Strathclyde,

The Law School,

Graham Hills building, 

50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 

UK

tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306

http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulat
ion-isbn9780415477765

Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038

Website: www.komaitis.org

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Πέμπτη, 26 Ιανουαρίου 2012 1:48 πμ
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
Names at Top Level

All,

Thanks for the very productive session today during our call.  Given the
feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and options for
protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level.  On
the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the
notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross or a
relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below).  It also
occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an
appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are
found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of
non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority,
but still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string.  Options 6(a)
and 6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on
the table.  

As requested during the call, these questions/options are being presented
for your review and discussion within your respective groups.  Please
provide any comments and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February 5th.
This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to our next call on
February 8th.  Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and
time.

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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  /
<http://www.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/20120203/6d9ed68f/attachment-0001.html>