[bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names

[Ron Andruff]

Steve,

 

We support your recommendation noted below, with the following thoughts.
Clearly, ICANN needs to continue to work closely with the GAC to keep ITU
incursions at bay...  

 

The only issue I would bring to your attention is should the IOC and Red
Cross get these 'special dispensations' (if I may call them that) such a
determination would not preclude the registrations of their names in the
second level at some future point.  That is to say, if Olympic Airlines were
to eager to register 'Olympic.aero' or the IOC itself were to decide it
would like to register 'Olympics' in a new TLD, such an action to facilitate
those registrations, should they arise, should be anticipated in your final
report.  For example, a letter from IOC to ICANN declaring no objection to
Olympic Airlines could satisfy that 'release' for Olympic Airlines.

 

Hope that this helps.

 

Thanks for your good work on this WG!

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Cc: john at crediblecontext.com
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
Names

 

John Berard asked me which options the WG is likely to pursue.  Can't really
predict that, but it would be good to express what BC members think are the
best options.

 

Would any BC members object to endorsing these options that I would
recommend?

 

Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow letter of
non-objection.

 

Q2: Option 2.  Give GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the
listed names.

 

Q3: Option 3.  Reserve policy would apply in this round, with no decision on
subsequent rounds.

 

 



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
Names
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso at icann.org>

I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO Working Group on
answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red Cross and the
Olympics.

 

Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us
towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level.

 

We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the
questions below, with respect to just top-level domains:

 

--Steve

 

Question 1.  How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be
Treated in the Current Application Round



GAC Proposal
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.

.        Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC
Proposal.  This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a)       Are not considered "Reserved Names"
b)      Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in
Section 2.2.1.2.3.

.        Option 2:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as
"reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2.  This means that:
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
b)  applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity
review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)        Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review,
there is no appeal.

.        Option 3:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as
"modified reserved names" meaning:
a)      The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International
Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as
applicable.
b)      applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity
review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c)       Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review,
there is no appeal.

.        Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal
process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to
the "reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.
.        Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal
process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to
the "modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.
 
.        Option 5a:  Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve
names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic
Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those
entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic
Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. 
 
.        Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving
a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.
 
.        Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal
process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
"modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.
 
.        Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal
process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
"modified reserved names."  Appeal mechanism TBD.

Question 2.  Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to
languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3?
If yes, which additional languages? 
a)      Option 1:  No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant
Guidebook
b)      Option 2:  Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in
"multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used
on the Internet."
c)       Option 3:  Extending protections to other languages, but a subset
of languages.

Question 3.  Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent
gTLD rounds?
 
a)       Option 1:  Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
b)      Option 2:   No, it should only apply to this current round.
c)       Option 3:  It should apply in this current round with no decision
on subsequent rounds.  We should evaluate the results of this initial round,
document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent
rounds based on the results of the evaluation.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20120208/91ce4f4d/attachment.html>