<html>
<body>
At the end of the 3rd paragraph, the sentence "Finally, we
understand that the proposal will not impact current domain name
registrations in existing top level domains?" should not have a
question mark. I would also replace "Finally" with "In
addition" as there are several paragraphs to follow, with the last
substantive one starting with "Finally".<br><br>
I still believe that we should give examples following the "strings
containing" sentence, just as we do for second-level names
containing "Olympic". If there is agreement, the 3rd paragraph
would then be.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in
Schedule A be “reserved”. Does this reservation apply just to exact
matches of those marks or does it also apply to strings containing those
marks (such as Olympics-Seoul, Olympic-Games, Red-Cross and
RedCross-Tsunami)? In addition, we understand that the proposal
will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top level
domains.
</dl>Alan<br><br>
At 25/10/2011 02:29 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>New draft. One
further edit.<br><br>
Stéphane<br><br>
<br>
Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:50, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :<br><br>
> Thanks John,<br>
> <br>
> Here's a draft with this latest edit.<br>
> <br>
> Does the Council approve this draft?<br>
> <br>
> Stéphane<br>
> <br>
> <GAC GNSO Message v0.2.docx><br>
> Le 25 oct. 2011 Ă 10:53, <john@crediblecontext.com> a
Ă©crit :<br>
> <br>
>> <br><br>
>> Stephane,<br>
>> <br>
>> I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph
is<br>
>> grammatically challenged. I have restated it as:<br>
>> <br>
>> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common
understanding<br>
>> of the proposal. <br>
>> <br>
>> The Proposal,at the top-level, places the exact strings
contained in<br>
>> Schedule A of the Proposal on the official reserved names list
as<br>
>> opposed to the “Strings Ineligible for Registration” list in
the<br>
>> Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the reservation be
permanent, not<br>
>> just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names
may not<br>
>> be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated
trade-mark<br>
>> owners.<br>
>> <br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> <br>
>> Berard<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC
re:<br>
>> IOC/Red Cross Names<br>
>> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com><br>
>> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am<br>
>> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org><br>
>> <br>
>> Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those
who<br>
>> proposed edits.<br>
>> <br>
>> I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I
have<br>
>> only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want
to put<br>
>> words in other people's mouths.<br>
>> <br>
>> Please review/comment as required.<br>
>> <br>
>> Stéphane<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Le 24 oct. 2011 Ă 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a Ă©crit :<br>
>> <br>
>>> Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates
Tim's suggestions.)<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<br>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM<br>
>>> To: john@crediblecontext.com<br>
>>> Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff<br>
>>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the
GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better
as:<br>
>>> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common
understanding<br>
>>> of your proposal.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it
affects existing<br>
>>> registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand
it, there<br>
>>> would be no impact on existing registrations. <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Not married to either edit, just suggestions.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Tim <br>
>>> <br>
>>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the
GAC re:<br>
>>> IOC/Red Cross Names<br>
>>> From: <john@crediblecontext.com><br>
>>> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am<br>
>>> To: "Neuman,Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us><br>
>>> Cc: "GNSO Council"
<council@gnso.icann.org><br>
>>> <br>
>>> Jeff,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I have made some suggestions.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Berard<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>>> Subject: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC
re:<br>
>>> IOC/Red Cross Names<br>
>>> From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us><br>
>>> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 3:37 am<br>
>>> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org><br>
>>> <br>
>>> All,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I
believe should be<br>
>>> sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion
yesterday on the<br>
>>> IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our
understanding of the<br>
>>> proposal and the questions we have. This is a first draft
and I welcome<br>
>>> your comments or suggestions. I know the suggestion that we
form a<br>
>>> joint group was met with silence, but I strongly believe we
should<br>
>>> continue to press on that.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks.<br>
>>> <br>
>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Dear __________,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone
into the<br>
>>> GAC’s “Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the
International<br>
>>> Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New
gTLDs”<br>
>>> (“Proposal”). We want to assure you that the GNSO
Council has<br>
>>> taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At
this point<br>
>>> in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council
on this<br>
>>> topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way
work with<br>
>>> collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to
the issues<br>
>>> identified.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the
proposal to<br>
>>> ensure that we had a common understanding on the Proposal.
Our<br>
>>> understanding is that the Proposal at the top-level is (a)
to place the<br>
>>> exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the
official<br>
>>> reserved names list as opposed to the “Strings Ineligible
for<br>
>>> Registration” list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b)
that the <br>
>>> reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in
just the<br>
>>> initial round.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings
contained in<br>
>>> Schedule A be “reserved”. With respect to this proposal,
the GNSO<br>
>>> raised several questions during its discussions this
weekend. The first<br>
>>> is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to
exact<br>
>>> matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC’s desire
to<br>
>>> “reserve” all strings containing those marks. We have
assumed it<br>
>>> was the former, but would like to confirm. <br>
>>> <br>
>>> In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several
types of<br>
>>> Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN
Registry<br>
>>> Agreement. The first type which only consists of the
string<br>
>>> “EXAMPLE” is a reserved name which may under no
circumstances be<br>
>>> delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved
Names are<br>
>>> those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the
Registry<br>
>>> Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of reserved
names are<br>
>>> those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated
under certain<br>
>>> limited circumstances. For example, two character strings
are initially<br>
>>> reserved, however, the Registry Operator may propose release
of these<br>
>>> reservations based on its implementation of measures to
avoid confusion<br>
>>> with the corresponding country codes. Further, country and
territory<br>
>>> names are initially reserved, but may be released to the
extent that the<br>
>>> Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable
government(s),<br>
>>> or subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory
Committee and<br>
>>> approval by ICANN.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the
IOC and Red<br>
>>> Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the
IOC, Red<br>
>>> Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the
domain names<br>
>>> and the second-level themselves. In addition,
notwithstanding the<br>
>>> international protection afforded to these marks, there may
be certain<br>
>>> circumstances where third parties do have a legitimate right
to use and<br>
>>> register these marks either due to grandfathering rules,
geographic<br>
>>> considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic
paint). <br>
>>> Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a
mechanism to release<br>
>>> these names to those entities and that such a mechanism
still needs to<br>
>>> be developed.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well
thought out<br>
>>> and detailed proposal and would like to again request that
the GNSO work<br>
>>> collaboratively together to address these questions We
believe a good<br>
>>> way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC
and GNSO to<br>
>>> form a committee or task force to work through these issues
with the<br>
>>> goal of sending those recommendations back to their
respective<br>
>>> organizations for approval. We know time is limited to
resolve these<br>
>>> matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as
possible.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Respectfully submitted,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> _____________________<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy<br>
>>> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166<br>
>>> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax:
+1.703.738.7965 /<br>
>>> jeff.neuman@neustar.biz /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for<br>
>>> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
confidential<br>
>>> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient you<br>
>>> have received this e-mail message in error and any
review,<br>
>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly<br>
>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please<br>
>>> notify us immediately and delete the original message.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <GAC letter.doc><br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
> <br><br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>