[gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***

[Ginger Paque]

I follow this list, and rarely post, because I don't have anything
significant to add.

In this case, I agree strongly with Avri and others, and that action should
be taken.

Thanks for all of your work, and please remember that your engagement is
followed, and is important to me, and certainly other silent member.

Gracias,
Ginger


Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
*The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most
exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May
2012: *Bilateral
Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*.  Apply now to
reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses**



On 25 February 2012 08:26, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I do hope that NCSG g-council members vote against this.  Represents a
> kowtow to these 2 organizations, that should not be countenanced.  Talk
> about slippery slopes.  I see no reason why thousands of other
> organizations would not demand similar special privileges.
>
> avri
>
> On 25 Feb 2012, at 05:51, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>
> > Please see the email below, regarding what will be presented to the a
> call that has been scheduled between this DT and the GNSO and members of
> the GAC next week. This option appears to be receiving rough consensus,
> despite all efforts. I am still to hear about the process regarding the
> letter of non-objection which is crucial, and in particular whether the IOC
> will be imposing fees when allowing another entity to use a similar
> name!!!!! The Red Cross has said they will not.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > KK
> >
> > From: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
> >>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:26:10 +0000
> > To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>" <
> gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>
> > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH
> FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***
> >
> > All,
> >
> > In line with Steve’s suggestion, I am freezing the language on Option 7
> as is with the suggested changes from Lanre and Greg.  We could probably
> word smith this forever. Please consider this the final version for seeking
> input and for raising during the call with the GAC next week. In the
> meantime, in addition to the status report, I will begin to draft the straw
> man of options for the second level.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> >
> > Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified
> Reserved Names,” meaning:
> >
> > a)      The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the
> International Olympic Committee (hereafter the “IOC”), International Red
> Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their respective
> components as applicable.
> >
> > b)      Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the
> IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine
> whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application
> for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Modified Reserved
> Name will not pass this initial review.
> >
> >
> > c)      If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:
> >
> >
> >                                i.            And the applied-for TLD
> identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or
> ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the
> RCRC, as applicable.
> >
> >                              ii.            If the applied-for TLD is
> not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial
> string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant
> may attempt to override the string similarity failure by:
> >
> >
> > 1.      Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as
> applicable; or
> >
> > 2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant
> must:
> >
> > a.       claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and
> demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
> > b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly
> similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not
> refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.
> >
> > 3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above
> provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other
> interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise
> contesting the determination.
> >
> > 4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of
> non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved
> pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one
> of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD
> applications.
> >
> >
> > 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<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/20120225/d5c2e9e7/attachment-0001.html>