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

[Nicolas Adam]

I would use even a very short comment period.

Nicolas

Please excuse my mobile brevity.

-----Original Message-----
From:         Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:21:35 
To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Reply-To:     Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:  OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***

hi,

A process question:

Will this stuff be going out for community comment before the g-council presumes to vote on it?

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.
>