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

[Evan Leibovitch]

FWIW, there is now a discussion going on in At-Large on the issue, started
when I forwarded Konstantinos' original mail.

There are a few sentiments being expressed there that might find common
ground here:

1) Many respondents believe that there is no cause for *any* exception,
that the existing defined objection processes should be sufficient for any
application harming the public interest to be stopped.

2) If there is a realization that some exception process *must* happen to
appease the GAC, there is significantly more sympathy for the IFRC to get
an exception (because of the potential of squatters to go after Red Cross
charitable donations) than for the IOC which has (to some), along with its
national affiliates, been excessively aggressive in attacking the many
non-conflicting overlaps of the string "olympic" (family restaurants, Greek
airlines, etc). In fact, I have yet to hear from anyone in the At-Large
discussion who supports any blanket exception for the IOC.

- Evan




2012/2/3 Joy Liddicoat <joy at apc.org>

> 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-Regulation-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 */* 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/20120203/d9cc65dc/attachment-0001.html>