Fwd: [ Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level
Avri Doria
avri at ACM.ORG
Wed Jun 6 21:25:37 CEST 2012
I am not sure these are final but here they are as they currently exist.
avri
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level
> Date: 31 May 2012 22:28:20 EDT
> To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
>
> All,
>
> In thinking about what we should be asking our SGs and constituencies to comment on, it occurred to me that all of the questions posed by Chuck were contained in the original note I sent back in late February which I still believes contains the relevant questions / options. I have supplemented Question 1 with part (iii) that comes from Avri’s note. Please note that this set of questions is a guideline. Constituencies/SGs/ACs can answer these questions or provide feedback in whatever form is deemed appropriate. This includes comments on the process we are using. But please provide a rationale for the responses.
>
> Avri – some of the questions you posed were philosophical or ones I though could be addressed in your feedback or by the GNSO Council (through its reps). Just wasn’t sure how to ask them here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> I. GAC PROPOSALS AT THE SECOND LEVEL
>
> 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. Please note that the GAC in their Q&A document did not ask to protect “similar” strings to the terms in Schedule A, but only identical matches.
>
> Questions
>
> 1. Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level in all new gTLDs?
>
> i. Option 1: No, there should be no change to the schedule of second-level reserved names currently in the new gTLD Registry Agreement.
>
> ii. Option 2: Yes, we should change the schedule of second-level reserved names currently in the new gTLD Registry Agreement to include:
>
> 1. Option 2(a)(i): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages
>
> 2. Option 2(a)(ii): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages
>
> 3. Option 2(b)(i): All of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages
>
> 4. Option 2(b)(ii): A subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages
>
> 5. Option 2(c): All of the RCRC and IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages
>
> 6. Option 2(d): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages, but only a subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages.
>
> 7. Option 2(e): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages, but all of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages.
>
> iii. If we adopt any of the Option 2 responses, then what benchmarks are we using to justify protections for these two organizations as opposed to the others that may have asked for protections and may be subject to the future proposed PDP.
>
>
> ADDITIONAL NOTES AND QUESTIONS ON #1
>
>
> * If we were to select any of the options involving a subset of terms, we would then need to consider which of the terms
>
> **All of the options above, I have included the 6 UN languages, but of course we can consider protecting just a subset of those languages as well.
>
> ***The question posed above talks about protecting in ALL new gTLDs, but are there any new gTLDs in which these protections should not apply
>
>
>
> 2. If we have selected any option above that allows for the protection of either or both of the IOC or RCRC terms (or just a subset of those terms) what type of reserved name would this be?
>
> i. Option 1: The reserved names should be treated as “forbidden names” 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. Option 2: The reserved names should be treated as “modified forbidden names” that can only be registered by the applicable organizations or their component parts.
>
> iii. Option 3: 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. In this case, the Registry Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the IOC or the RCRC as applicable.
>
> iv. Option 4: Like 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.. In this case, the IOC/RCRC terms would be initially reserved, but the reservation of the IOC/RCRC terms may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reached agreement with the IOC and/or RCRC as applicable.
>
> 3. If we have chosen either option ii, iii or iv for Question 2, what would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list for such option? NOTE, I HAVE NOT LAID OUT THE OPTIONS YET FOR THIS ONE AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM. IF AND WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ADDRESS, OPTIONS WILL BE CRAFTED.
>
>
> 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/20120606/0e13071c/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/20120606/0e13071c/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120606/0e13071c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20120606/0e13071c/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120606/0e13071c/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list