[council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names

Tue Oct 25 10:15:05 UTC 2011

Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who proposed edits.

I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put words in other people's mouths.

Please review/comment as required.

Stéphane

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GAC GNSO Message.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 149462 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111025/45c835a9/GACGNSOMessage.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.)
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM
> To: john at crediblecontext.com
> Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
> 
> 
> Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons:
> 
> In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as:
> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding
> of your proposal.
> 
> In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing
> registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there
> would be no impact on existing registrations. 
> 
> Not married to either edit, just suggestions.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re:
> IOC/Red Cross Names
> From: <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am
> To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I have made some suggestions.
> 
> Berard
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re:
> IOC/Red Cross Names
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 3:37 am
> To: GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> All,
> 
> Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe should be
> sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion yesterday on the
> IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our understanding of the
> proposal and the questions we have. This is a first draft and I welcome
> your comments or suggestions. I know the suggestion that we form a
> joint group was met with silence, but I strongly believe we should
> continue to press on that.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> Dear __________,
> 
> The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the
> GAC?s ?Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International
> Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs?
> (?Proposal?). We want to assure you that the GNSO Council has
> taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At this point
> in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council on this
> topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way work with
> collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to the issues
> identified.
> 
> To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal to
> ensure that we had a common understanding on the Proposal. Our
> understanding is that the Proposal at the top-level is (a) to place the
> exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the official
> reserved names list as opposed to the ?Strings Ineligible for
> Registration? list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the 
> reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in just the
> initial round.
> 
> At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in
> Schedule A be ?reserved?. With respect to this proposal, the GNSO
> raised several questions during its discussions this weekend. The first
> is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to exact
> matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC?s desire to
> ?reserve? all strings containing those marks. We have assumed it
> was the former, but would like to confirm. 
> 
> In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of
> Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry
> Agreement. The first type which only consists of the string
> ?EXAMPLE? is a reserved name which may under no circumstances be
> delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved Names are
> those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the Registry
> Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of reserved names are
> those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated under certain
> limited circumstances. For example, two character strings are initially
> reserved, however, the Registry Operator may propose release of these
> reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion
> with the corresponding country codes. Further, country and territory
> names are initially reserved, but may be released to the extent that the
> Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s),
> or subject to review by ICANN?s Governmental Advisory Committee and
> approval by ICANN.
> 
> Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and Red
> Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the IOC, Red
> Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the domain names
> and the second-level themselves. In addition, notwithstanding the
> international protection afforded to these marks, there may be certain
> circumstances where third parties do have a legitimate right to use and
> register these marks either due to grandfathering rules, geographic
> considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic paint). 
> Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a mechanism to release
> these names to those entities and that such a mechanism still needs to
> be developed.
> 
> The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought out
> and detailed proposal and would like to again request that the GNSO work
> collaboratively together to address these questions We believe a good
> way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC and GNSO to
> form a committee or task force to work through these issues with the
> goal of sending those recommendations back to their respective
> organizations for approval. We know time is limited to resolve these
> matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as possible.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> _____________________
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 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.
> 
> 
> <GAC letter.doc>