FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on Wednesday

Tue Jan 10 21:59:28 CET 2012

Hi all - for those who are interested, and may have forgotten, below are my
notes from the previous informal GNSO meeting (which happened last year) on
the implementation of the Board decision on the IOC and Red Cross. The next
meeting is tomorrow - and thanks Nicolas and Avri for your comments.

These meetings are intended to help the GNSO develop advice on how to
implement the ICANN Board decision in relation to the IOC and Red Cross
Names. The Board has asked the GNSO and GAC to work together to provide a
single proposal for submission to the Board on permanent name protection
(see the attached Q&A).

The meetings are open and you are welcome to attend.

Kind regards

Joy

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Joy
Liddicoat
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2011 11:18 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on
Wednesday

Hi all - am sending the documents relating to this call today which was an
informal meeting of GNSO Councillors and other interested persons to discuss
the issue of the IOC and Red Cross domain names. The meeting was a
preliminary one and agreed to:

.         Circulate the attached information to our respective stakeholder
groups for comment

.         Have a follow up call (tentatively scheduled for Jan 11th)

.         Provide a short update at the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow to the
effect that the meeting had taken place so that GAC can be kept advised of
progress and likely timeframes for response

Your comments on the questions would of course be welcome, particularly
whether this a policy issue or one of implementation of a Board decision.
While there were different views on this it was agreed that further
information was needed to answer that question and Jeff Neuman (Chair)
agreed to follow that up.

It was agreed that others can join the meetings (and quite a few did so).
There was some discussion of whether, if the IOC and Red Cross names would
otherwise succeed in an objection process, there was any harm in putting
variations of these in the reserved list or including as part of a string
similarity review. No decisions were made, but some points of view were
exchanged.

I will circulate the links to the transcript of the meeting once this
becomes available. Comments and questions would be very welcome.

Regards

Joy

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 5:04 p.m.
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Documents / Thoughts for Initial Call on Wednesday

All,

In advance of the call, I am resending around the documents sent to us by
the GAC on their proposal with respect to the handling of IOC and Red Cross
domain names at both the top and second levels.   In addition, I have
attached a list of questions we can choose to discuss.

Overall Issue:

a)      Do we believe this issue is one of implementation (as the GAC has
interpreted), or is this an issue of policy?

b)      Should these marks be protected at all?  Pros vs. Cons?  (NOTE:
This item's discussion can take up the entire call, but I do not want to
dwell on this given the number of subjects.  What I would like to do is
spend no more than 15 minutes on this subject listing the arguments for and
against.  Of course we will allow anyone to submit comments via e-mail on
this subject after the call for evaluation).  I am not trying to suppress
any discussion on this, but given that we spent almost all of the Council
discussions in Dakar on this question alone and did not have much time to
discuss the other questions, I want us to be able to get on to the other
questions.

Top Level Protection

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.

Questions:

a)       Should the reservation be permanent or just apply during the first
round?

b)      Should terms in this round and beyond receive consideration during
string similarity review?

c)       Should reservation in this round and beyond extend to additional
languages?

Second Level Protections

With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the
new gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved
names. The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A
attached to their proposal.    They recommend the identical terms be
protected in the 6 UN languages with an "encouragement" to registries to
provide additional languages.

Questions

a.       Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second
level in all new gTLDs?

b.      If so, what type of reserved name would this be?

                                                               i.      A
"forbidden name" that can never be registered (not even by those
organizations) - NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they want.

                                                             ii.      Like a
2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose release
of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid
confusion with the corresponding country codes.

                                                            iii.      Like a
Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the
reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the
extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable
government(s), provided, further, that Registry Operator may also propose
release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN's Governmental
Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.

c.       Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released:  What
would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?

Any other questions or topics?

Thanks!

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
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/20120111/8f531db9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GAC advice on IOC and Red Cross Sep. 2011.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 474112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120111/8f531db9/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IOC AND IRC RESERVATIONS IN NEW GTLDS QUESTIONS AND-ANSWERS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 233607 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120111/8f531db9/attachment.pdf>