Proposed protections for IOC/RC names

[Nicolas Adam]

Here are my comments, indented in the DT chair's unofficial status 
report. I am tempted to let it to our representatives whose hard-work 
and knowledge have earned my respect to use and transform these comment 
as they see fit, including the possibility of ignoring them altogether.

With apologies for length. If you have read the DT's report, you may 
safely skip to the indented parts.

Nicolas

> During its June 20, 2011 meeting in Singapore, the ICANN Board of 
> Directors adopted a
> resolution providing for “incorporation of text concerning protection 
> for specific requested Red
> Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial 
> application round, until the GNSO
> and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.”2
>
>
> The ICANN Board resolution directed the GNSO Council and the GAC to 
> work together
> to develop policy advice for permanently protecting the Olympic and 
> Red Cross names at the top
> and second levels of an expanded domain name system.

How did the "developing of policy advice based on the global public 
interest" came to mean "develop[ing] policy advice for permanently 
protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second levels 
of an expanded domain name system"?

Understanding the need that the GNSO and the GAC have to work together, 
preferably in a manner that would suggest that it could conceivably be 
repeatable and that would put forth both parties good faith, there still 
need to be sound rationale/basis for the output, couched in a "global 
public interest" language, for the foundation of this advice-making 
dialogue to be both constructive and legitimate.

Logical hiatuses of the /non sequitur / or///ignoratio elenchi /variety 
(e.g. in this case, ignoring the question of the proper policy advice 
which would purport to best serve global public interest by implying 
peremptorily that one's preferred solution is the only conceivable one) 
are not sound dialogue foundations for GAC-gNSO relationships going 
forward. The ease with which GAC's views are seemingly forced upon gNSO 
without so much as an attempt at generalized justification for the 
reservation of the strings does not bode well for future GAC-gNSO 
relationships. Nor are they sound internal gNSO practices to entrench. 
In due term, especially with actors that have recurring interactions, 
they are inevitably counterproductive and deleterious.

> Pursuant to the Board resolution,
> ICANN counsel and staff have implemented Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the 
> Applicant Guidebook, which
> temporarily prevents new gTLD applicants from registering certain 
> Olympic and Red Cross
> names at the top level during the initial gTLD application round.
>
> B)   GAC Proposal
> On September 14, 2011, a proposal was sent from the GAC to the GNSO 
> Council
> regarding a proposal for the protection of certain International 
> Olympic Committee (“IOC“) and
> Red Cross/Red Crescent (“RCRC“) names.
> 3
>   The proposal was followed up with a discussion
> between the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN meeting in Dakar and a 
> Question and
> Answer document addressing some of the issues with respect to the 
> protection of these names at
> the top and second levels.  As a result of those discussions, the GNSO 
> Council created an
> informal drafting team open to both Councilors and interested members 
> of the community to
> assist the GNSO Council in developing its own set of recommendations.  
> The drafting team has
> met bi-weekly since December and maintains a publicly-available e-mail 
> archive at
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/ (“Drafting Team”).   In 
> addition, representatives from
> the IOC and the RCRC movement have also been actively participating in 
> the group. A full list
> of participants on the Drafting Team is attached as Appendix 1. 
> C)   Activities of the Drafting Team.
> The issues presented to the Drafting Team by the GAC Proposal involved 
> significant
> questions of implementation both at the top and second levels.


There is no record of a mandate or community recommendation to the 
effect that the need to develop joint GAC-gNSO policy advice to the 
board necessitates incorporating language into the guidebook that would 
purport to implement permanent protection of submitted strings in the 
top and second level domains. But "implementation" is casually dropped 
for the second time, both times in a rhetorical manner. While it might 
have been the opinion of some in the drafting team that such was the 
proper policy road to take, this process cannot be thought to be an 
adequate substitute for bottom-up gNSO recommendation processes.


> Given the fact that the
> application window for the top-level opened on January 12, 2012 and is 
> set to close on April 12,
> 2012, if any new protections were to be proposed at the top level, 
> those recommendations need
> to be approved by the ICANN Board of Directors with sufficient time to 
> provide notice,
> predictability and transparency to current applicants in this first 
> round.  Conversely, although
> there is a need to evaluate whether to create additional protections 
> at the second level,   such
> protections would not need to be finalized until the first new gTLD 
> Registry Agreement is
> executed.  The earliest this is expected to occur is Q1 2013. Thus, 
> until this week, the Drafting
> Team decided to focus exclusively initially on protections at the 
> top-level, to be followed by
> evaluation of the issues pertaining to protections at the second-level. 

Given the high level of opposition to the opinion that seem to be that 
of some in the drafting team, at least with regard NCSG, it is the 
council's responsibility to not /ignore what other policy-advice there 
could logically be/ (the /ignoratio elenchi/ rhetorical-political ploy) 
with regard the task that the Board entrusted the gNSO. The unofficial 
status report half-concede for half a sentence this possibility. Even it 
can not hide the n/on sequitur/ nature of its stance for a full 6 pages. 
The presumption that the /ignoratio elenchi /is an acceptable way to go 
about debating in the gNSO, perhaps for what are thought to be pragmatic 
purposes, is a misguided one. Time constraints are a valid concern, and 
the decision to focus on only the top level at this time is a wise and 
pragmatic one, a decision that should not eschew proper consideration of 
the substantive issues at stake.

> D)  Next Steps
> We are currently soliciting feedback from the Drafting Team and GNSO 
> Community
> regarding the Drafting Team recommendations at the top level and are 
> also seeking to get
> feedback from the GAC in Costa Rica.  Assuming that a consensus is 
> reached in the Drafting
> Team and Council that is also supported by the GAC, we will strive to 
> hold a GNSO Council
> vote in Costa Rica on the recommendations to send to the ICANN Board.  
> We are also working
> on obtaining the definitive list of translations as stated above. 

Sidestepping the debates is no way to obtain a consensus, rough or 
otherwise. Never once were the GAC justifications to the effect that the 
entities in question deserved special status was debated on in the gNSO 
community or in joint manner with the GAC. If it would have been 
debated, it could have been shown that the list of strings for which a 
special status is sought would be deserving of such status or not, and 
sound rationale could have been provided with regard whatever policy 
advice gNSo would have felt entitled to negotiate with the GAC and 
recommend to the Board.

Some other important substantive axis could have been discussed and 
debated that could have borne an impact on the nature of gNSO-GAC 
negociation and ultimately, joint advice to the Board. It could have 
been shown that GAC-gNSO historic relationships needed mending, needed 
special nudging, needed careful consideration of the laying down of 
dialogue foundations, or other such considerations. While the 
stakeholder groups and constituencies of the gNSO are in part composed 
of passionate people with diversified interests, it is not the belief of 
this commenter that they collectively hold no wisdom or that they can 
not be convinced to water-down some principled positions on the behalf 
of the Supporting Organization's unity going forward. The refusal to 
engage issues is deleterious to the gNSO itself, and to the relationship 
it purportedly seek to establish or mend with the GAC and/or the Board. 
It set itself squarely on a track that invites politicization and 
manipulation of its diversified interests by refusing to engage in the 
(perhaps laborious but necessary) task of substantive 
consensus-building. While these are sound advice for any type of 
gNSO-activity, in the present instance, the gNSO mandated task 
critically called for rationales building upon the concept of the global 
public interest.


>   PROTECTIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL
> In the current version of the Applicant Guidebook, Section 2.2.1.2.3 
> extends limited
> protections to identical matches of certain IOC and RCRC terms at the 
> top-level.  However, this
> Section does not provide for protections of the IOC or RCRC in all 
> foreign languages, nor does it
> invoke “String Similarity Review”, for strings that may be confusingly 
> similar at the top level,
> such as “.olympics, .olympix, .redkross, .redkresent, etc.).   In 
> addition, the current Applicant
> Guidebook would not only prevent third parties from applying for the 
> IOC or RCRC terms, but it
> would also not allow the IOC or RCRC to obtain these strings should 
> they desire to do so.
>
>   The Drafting Team considered a number of different options with 
> respect to protections
> of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level ranging from 
> recommending no changes to
> the current implementation mechanisms in the Guidebook, to the 
> adoption of the GAC Proposal
> as is.  Although no option is technically off the table, it is 
> expected that the Drafting Team will
> reach at least a rough consensus in recommending to the GNSO Council 
> the following, which
> has been under discussion for the past several weeks.
>
> Recommendation 1:    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 confusingly 
> 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.

There seem to be intent from some on the drafting team to impose rough 
consensus on substantive policy details by sheer virtue of (presumed) 
single majority. While NCSG critics of the substantive policy position 
proposed in the unofficial report  ― to date, NCSG overwhelmingly 
disapprove of the rationale brought forward cursorily (implied, really) 
for special string considerations ― would presumably have been pliable 
to some kind of concessions, it appears that the drafting team has 
chosen a tyranny-of-the-majority way of thinking about consensus-building.

The substantive proposal puts forward an unprecedented level of control 
over potentially legitimate applications in the hands of IOC and RCRC, 
without so much as providing any kind of rationale that would purport to 
constrain future like-demands; it furthermore does not seem to preclude 
monetary compensations for the acquisition of an exemption under ii(1), 
nor does it provide benchmark that would guide the reception of a 
potentially legitimate applciation under the terms set forth in ii(2). 
Interestingly, ii(2) asks of potentially legitimate application to do a 
demonstration which was not asked of the IOC or the RCRC. If one 
extrapolates the rationale behind the proposed recommendation to the 
criteria needed to demonstrate a legitimate interest under ii(2), one 
would conclude that approval is dependent upon political alliance of an 
unspecified sort.

> Recommendation 2:    Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages 
> as Feasible
>
>   The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC “names should be 
> protected in multiple
> languages—all translations of the listed names in languages used on 
> the Internet…The lists of
> protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative 
> and representative, not
> exhaustive.”  Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that 
> the lists provided by the
> IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language 
> on the Internet is not a
> standard that the Drafting Team believes is feasible to achieve.  
> While it is true that the list of
> languages can be expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a 
> String Similarity Review (as
> recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be 
> created.  It is the Drafting
> Team’s understanding that representatives from the IOC and RCRC are 
> working on the creation
> of that definitive list and should be able to present that to the 
> Drafting Team by no later than the
> ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica.  If such a list can be produced, the 
> Drafting Team may
> recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in 
> the Applicant Guidebook.
>
>   In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely 
> event that a third party
> applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained 
> on the list, the IOC or
> RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set 
> forth in the Applicant
> Guidebook.
> Recommendation 3:  Protections should apply for all future rounds, but 
> may be reviewed after
> the first round.
>
>   In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for 
> the IOC and RCRC
> should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should 
> be a permanent protection
> afforded for all subsequent rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has 
> not spent a lot of time
> discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making 
> this recommendation as one
> intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like 
> all other aspects of the new
> gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community 
> should it desire to
> do so. 

If for no other reason that to have found out that there is indeed 
sizable disagreement in the gNSO community with regard the blanket 
exemptions and unprecedented level of control afforded in the unofficial 
recommendation, then the drafting team has served its purpose. There is 
no justification for returing later to the community alluded to in the 
unofficial report's third recommendation if the community wants to 
review the recommendations prior to affording them.

> FUTURE WORK:  PROTECTIONS AT THE SECOND LEVEL
>
> Going into Costa Rica and beyond, the Drafting Team understands that 
> it will need to focus on
> protections at the second-level to see if it can find consensus within 
> the group on the GAC
> proposals.   With respect to second-level names, it is the Drafting 
> Team’s belief that 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 the GAC proposal and should include that the identical 
> terms be protected in the 6
> UN languages with an “encouragement” to registries to provide 
> additional languages.
>
> It is the Drafting Team’s expectation that that the following 
> questions will need to be addressed
> by the Drafting Team in order to provide recommendations on the second 
> level:
>
> 1.  Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second 
> level in all
> new gTLDs? 5
>
> 2.  If the Drafting Team supports the notion of reserving IOC or RCRC 
> names at the
> second level, 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)
>
> 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 the Drafting Team  chooses either option ii, iii or iv for 
> Question 2, what would
> be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list for such option?
>
> It is the goal of the Drafting Team to have its work completed on the 
> second level protections by
> the ICANN meeting in Prague in order to be able to implement changes, 
> if any, to the new gTLD
> Registry Agreement prior to any new gTLD Registry Operator having to 
> execute such an
> Agreement with ICANN. 

In the spirit of this commentary, the drafting team or some other gNSO 
organ, should spend some time pondering upon the first question and 
providing a rationale for an ultimate recommendation on SLDs. How can a 
list of options be presented under question 2 that does not presume of a 
rationale and an answer to question 1? Again, this would be policy 
advice that would peremptorily *imply* a rationale, which is the worst 
sort of /ignoratio elenchi /with regard possible precedent-setting as 
well as internal SO's relationships.

― end of comments ―


On 2/29/2012 6:13 PM, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote:
>
> Sometimes being a pest (meaning me, not KK!) pays (some) dividends - 
> the most recent responses to my querulous behavior on the Council list 
> would indicate that while the Drafting Team's Status Report will NOT 
> be put out for formal public comment (since it is a summary drafted by 
> the Chair rather than an official report from the whole DT), still (1) 
> the DT would like feedback now about its recommendations; and (2) the 
> finalized list of recommendations, which will be created after the 
> Friday call among the DT, the GAC and the GNSO Council, should be put 
> out for formal public comment, as is usually done with all GNSO 
> working group and other community reports.
>
>
> This still means a very short time available for public comment before 
> the Costa Rica meeting, where the GNSO Council will be asked to vote 
> on the recommendations. As such, I still urge members who believe 
> either the status report and/or ultimately the final recommendations 
> do not represent community consensus or a sound approach to voice 
> their comments, initially through our DT and Council members and 
> subsequently during the formal public comment period.
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
> 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: 
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available 
> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with 
> the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of 
> New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have 
> changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. 
> For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, 
> please visit law.unh.edu
>
>
> >>>
>
> *From: *
>
> 	
>
> Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
>
> *To:*
>
> 	
>
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>
> *Date: *
>
> 	
>
> 2/29/2012 5:58 PM
>
> *Subject: *
>
> 	
>
> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed protections for IOC/RC names
>
> Apologies for the cross posting of the email regarding the IO– long 
> day here :)
>
> The issue of the public comment has been discussed and there was some 
> support. I will continue to insist on this for the simple reason that 
> this process has already been sidetracked in many other procedural 
> aspects. We need to maintain at the very least the opportunity of the 
> community to provide its feedback.
>
> Thanks
>
> KK
>
> From: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>" 
> <Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>>
> Reply-To: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>" 
> <Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>>
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:57:09 +0000
> To: 
> "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" 
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed protections for IOC/RC names
>
>
> All, as you know, the Drafting Team (DT) on which Konstantinos, Joy 
> and a few other NCSG members participated has just released a Status 
> Report on its work, preparatory to the call tomorrow with interested 
> members of the GAC and GNSO Council.
>
>
> As a Council member, I asked if the Report will be put out officially 
> for public comment, prior to the Council being asked to vote on it in 
> Costa Rica in a couple of weeks. Given the urgency of the issue and 
> the lack of time between now and then, there isn't likely to be a 
> formal public comment period. Instead, the time between now and the 
> Costa Rica meeting is being regarded as the "functional equivalent" of 
> a formal public comment period. It's possible that some fuss can be 
> made about the procedural inadequacy of this, or even about whether 
> the Council ought to vote, but even so, that's not likely to delay or 
> change things as they stand.
>
>
> Given the level of interest amongst our members in the topic, and the 
> number of strong views that have been expressed, I would recommend 
> that individual members, and/or each Constituency, and/or the SG as a 
> whole, consider sending comments on the Report. I will find out if an 
> ICANN public comment email address can be set up quickly to receive 
> these comments.
>
>
> I'm attaching the DT's Status Report to this post (if the listserv 
> will let me :)
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
> 03301USAEmail: 
> mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone>: 
> 1-603-513-5143Webpage: 
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available 
> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with 
> the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of 
> New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have 
> changed and now follow the convention: 
> firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu<mailto:firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu>. 
> For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, 
> please visit law.unh.edu
>
>
> >>>
>
> From:
>
>
> Konstantinos Komaitis 
> <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK<mailto:k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>>
>
>
> To:
>
>
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>
>
> Date:
>
>
> 2/26/2012 5:57 AM
>
>
> Subject:
>
>
> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 
> v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***
>
>
> I would really hope so and this is certainly how this group started 
> operating. Now, of course, the DT is running out time and I am not 
> sure. I have sent a note to the DT with this question and get back to you
>
> Cheers
>
> KK
>
> From: "Avri org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Reply-To: "Avri org>" 
> <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:21:35 +0000
> To: 
> "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" 
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> 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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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/20120301/5dccbe7a/attachment-0001.html>