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

[Rudi Vansnick]

Quick response to this question :

Brands and trademarks have already a well established mechanism of protection. Why should there be another mechanism ? Is this just food for lawyers ? What's the added value to a process that at the end is still governed by national law and trademark law ? ICANN should keep distance from this and let legislation do the work. If we accept this what's coming next ? Which other organisation will stand up and request their protection ? Endless debate without any outcome except one : the internet user will always be the one that pays the bill !

Rudi Vansnick
——————————————— Internet Society Belgium  —————————————————
President - CEO                      Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be            Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32
Dendermondesteenweg 143        B-9070 Destelbergen  BELGIUM
www.internetsociety.be       "The Internet is for everyone"
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Op 2-feb-2012, om 10:48 heeft Konstantinos Komaitis het volgende geschreven:

> 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/20120203/0022453f/attachment-0001.html>