<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My only question is for Q3, why we wouldn’t want to say protection should apply to subsequent rounds. I know option 3 gives the appearance of being more cautious, but as a practical matter, the reserve policy should continue in order to be effective. Of course, we’d like to see this same kind of protection available for all trademark owners.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Sarah<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>Sarah B. Deutsch <br>Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>Verizon Communications <br>Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>Fax: 703-351-3670 </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve DelBianco<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> bc - GNSO list<br><b>Cc:</b> john@crediblecontext.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Would any BC members object to endorsing these options that I would recommend?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow letter of non-objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Q2: Option 2. Give GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the listed names.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Q3: Option 3. Reserve policy would apply in this round, with no decision on subsequent rounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:6.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' id=replyBlockquote><div id=wmQuoteWrapper><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross<br>Names<br>From: Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm<br>To: bc - GNSO list <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>--Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>GAC Proposal<br></span></u><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<br><u><br></u>· <u>Option 1</u>: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:<br>a) Are not considered “Reserved Names”<br>b) Applied for strings are <u>not</u> reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.<br><u><br></u>· <u>Option 2:</u> Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that:<br>a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and<br>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.<br>c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is <u>no</u> appeal.<br><br>· <u>Option 3</u>: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning:<br>a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.<br>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.<br>c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is <u>no</u> appeal.<br><br>· <u>Option 4a</u> – 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.<br>· <u>Option 4b</u> – 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.<br> <br>· <u>Option 5a</u>: 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. <br> <br>· <u>Option 5b</u>: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.<br> <br>· <u>Option 6a</u>: 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.<br> <br>· <u>Option 6b</u>: 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.<br><br><b>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? <br></b>a) <u>Option 1</u>: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook<br>b) <u>Option 2</u>: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “<i>multiple languages -</i> all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.”<br>c) <u>Option 3</u>: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages.<br><u><br></u><b>Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?<br> <br></b>a) <u>Option 1</u>: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds<br>b) <u>Option 2:</u> No, it should only apply to this current round.<br>c) <u>Option 3</u>: 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>