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@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@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.
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. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@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.
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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.
I would personally support reserve policy for subsequent round in Q3. I think I am okay on the other two. This is top level, I am assuming? BUT, I am wondering what is the GAC's view on all of these options? From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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.
Thanks Steve. I support your initially-stated Option 1: 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. This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. Best, Mike >________________________________ > From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> >To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM >Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names > > > >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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco >Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM >To: bc - GNSO list >Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> >>Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm >>To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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 RoundGAC 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. >> >> > >
I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that. I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Thanks Steve. I support your initially-stated Option 1: 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. This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. Best,Mike From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names 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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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.
I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied for statutory protection in various countries. One other example I am well familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating FIFA's. I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second level. I see no reason to accede to this demand. If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level. Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I have seen. >________________________________ > From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> >To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM >Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names > > > >I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. > > >I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that. > > >I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. > > >________________________________ >Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 >From: icann@rodenbaugh.com >Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >To: randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org > > >Thanks Steve. > > >I support your initially-stated Option 1: > > > 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. > > > >This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. > > >Best, >Mike > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> >>To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> >>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM >>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> >> >> >>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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco >>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM >>To: bc - GNSO list >>Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> >>>Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm >>>To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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 RoundGAC 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. >>> >>> >> >> > >
Mike, thanks for your response. I may have a different perspective, in working with the GAC overall. In my personal view, and also in my view as chair, the BC has benefitted from an improved working relationship with the governments -- witness the GAC Scorecard,and work related to WHOIS /LEA topics. I think that BC members -- business users more broadly -- are trying to work with a key player in the ICANN process. Have you had a chance to review the GAC document, which has international treaty, and national law status for the Olympic and Red Cross names? that was a powerful and informed document, with a strong justification that these names are unique in such status. Marilyn Cade Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:04:13 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied for statutory protection in various countries. One other example I am well familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating FIFA's. I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second level. I see no reason to accede to this demand. If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level. Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I have seen. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that. I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Thanks Steve. I support your initially-stated Option 1: 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. This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. Best,Mike From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names 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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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.
Thanks Marilyn. I agree it has beneficial to work with the GAC, but unfortunately I see at least some members overreaching to the point where there needs to be some pushback even from those of us who want to work with them. If these two entities are truly unique due to treaties, then the policy allowing reservation ought to be strictly limited only to those two organizations, and only because of their truly unique status of protection via nearly-global international treaty (as opposed to bilateral or trilateral treaties involving only a few countries). Again, I know there are many organizations that have 'national law status' in the U.S. and internationally, with FIFA as just one glaring example. So that ought not be the basis on which this privilege is granted. Otherwise I fear this issue will continue to recur as other powerful organizations seek the same privilege. >________________________________ > From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> >To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:09 AM >Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names > > > >Mike, thanks for your response. > > >I may have a different perspective, in working with the GAC overall. In my personal view, and also in my view as chair, the BC has benefitted from an improved working relationship with the governments -- witness the GAC Scorecard,and work related to WHOIS /LEA topics. > > >I think that BC members -- business users more broadly -- are trying to work with a key player in the ICANN process. > > >Have you had a chance to review the GAC document, which has international treaty, and national law status for the Olympic and Red Cross names? that was a powerful and informed document, with a strong justification that these names are unique in such status. > > >Marilyn Cade > > > >________________________________ >Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:04:13 -0800 >From: icann@rodenbaugh.com >Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org > > >I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied for statutory protection in various countries. One other example I am well familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating FIFA's. > > >I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second level. I see no reason to accede to this demand. > > >If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level. Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I have seen. > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> >>To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> >>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM >>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> >> >> >>I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. >> >> >>I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that. >> >> >>I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. >> >> >>________________________________ >>Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 >>From: icann@rodenbaugh.com >>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >>To: randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org >> >> >>Thanks Steve. >> >> >>I support your initially-stated Option 1: >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >>This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. >> >> >>Best, >>Mike >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> >>>To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM >>>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >>> >>> >>> >>>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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco >>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM >>>To: bc - GNSO list >>>Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> >>>>Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm >>>>To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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 RoundGAC 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
I tend to side with Mike in this. The GAC is now a force and must be worked with, but it also needs pushback when it goes too far. No one in their right minds is going to throw away $185k trying to apply for .olympics or .redcross. That said, if this is truly a unique situation and doesn’t set a precedent that opens the floodgates for more special protection, I’d have no objection to the BC issuing a letter of non-objection to reserving these names for the first round, at the top level only. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:25 PM To: Marilyn Cade; ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks Marilyn. I agree it has beneficial to work with the GAC, but unfortunately I see at least some members overreaching to the point where there needs to be some pushback even from those of us who want to work with them. If these two entities are truly unique due to treaties, then the policy allowing reservation ought to be strictly limited only to those two organizations, and only because of their truly unique status of protection via nearly-global international treaty (as opposed to bilateral or trilateral treaties involving only a few countries). Again, I know there are many organizations that have 'national law status' in the U.S. and internationally, with FIFA as just one glaring example. So that ought not be the basis on which this privilege is granted. Otherwise I fear this issue will continue to recur as other powerful organizations seek the same privilege. ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names Mike, thanks for your response. I may have a different perspective, in working with the GAC overall. In my personal view, and also in my view as chair, the BC has benefitted from an improved working relationship with the governments -- witness the GAC Scorecard,and work related to WHOIS /LEA topics. I think that BC members -- business users more broadly -- are trying to work with a key player in the ICANN process. Have you had a chance to review the GAC document, which has international treaty, and national law status for the Olympic and Red Cross names? that was a powerful and informed document, with a strong justification that these names are unique in such status. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:04:13 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied for statutory protection in various countries. One other example I am well familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating FIFA's. I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second level. I see no reason to accede to this demand. If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level. Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I have seen. ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES. I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that. I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. ________________________________ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Thanks Steve. I support your initially-stated Option 1: 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. This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists. Best, Mike ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names 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<http://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@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@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@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@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. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12
Darwin agrees with this approach. Long term, domain names are going to be subsumed into the global branding milieu, but we don't have to go there at the moment. - Mike On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
I tend to side with Mike in this. The GAC is now a force and must be worked with, but it also needs pushback when it goes too far.
No one in their right minds is going to throw away $185k trying to apply for .olympics or .redcross. That said, if this is truly a unique situation and doesn’t set a precedent that opens the floodgates for more special protection, I’d have no objection to the BC issuing a letter of non-objection to reserving these names for the first round, at the top level only.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:25 PM To: Marilyn Cade; ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
Thanks Marilyn. I agree it has beneficial to work with the GAC, but unfortunately I see at least some members overreaching to the point where there needs to be some pushback even from those of us who want to work with them. If these two entities are truly unique due to treaties, then the policy allowing reservation ought to be strictly limited only to those two organizations, and only because of their truly unique status of protection via nearly-global international treaty (as opposed to bilateral or trilateral treaties involving only a few countries).
Again, I know there are many organizations that have 'national law status' in the U.S. and internationally, with FIFA as just one glaring example. So that ought not be the basis on which this privilege is granted. Otherwise I fear this issue will continue to recur as other powerful organizations seek the same privilege.
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
Mike, thanks for your response.
I may have a different perspective, in working with the GAC overall. In my personal view, and also in my view as chair, the BC has benefitted from an improved working relationship with the governments -- witness the GAC Scorecard,and work related to WHOIS /LEA topics.
I think that BC members -- business users more broadly -- are trying to work with a key player in the ICANN process.
Have you had a chance to review the GAC document, which has international treaty, and national law status for the Olympic and Red Cross names? that was a powerful and informed document, with a strong justification that these names are unique in such status.
Marilyn Cade
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:04:13 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
I do not think it is all that unique for powerful organizations to have lobbied for statutory protection in various countries. One other example I am well familiar with is FIFA in relation to its "World Cup", even though there are plenty of other "World Cup" events in sports and entertainment, many predating FIFA's.
I also think the GAC has got far more than it ever should have got through this newTLD implementation process, especially wrt geographic names at the second level. I see no reason to accede to this demand.
If anything, only two precise strings should be reserved at the top level. Even that is too large of a concession, without any real justification that I have seen.
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:48 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
I AM CONFUSED. I THINK THAT THE GAC WANTS RESERVE STATUS, CITING THE UNIQUE LEGAL NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR THESE PARTICULAR NAMES.
I talked to Wipo recently, I don't think they see a slippery slope, but perhaps other have more detailed insights on that.
I can't support rejecting the GAC proposal. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:03:11 -0800 From: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names To: randruff@rnapartners.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Thanks Steve.
I support your initially-stated Option 1:
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.
This is a big slippery slope, which could lead many other entities that have lobbied for statutory protection (anywhere in the world) to cry for similar treatment. Also, the ramifications of eliminating any 'confusingly similar' strings in any language are completely unknown, and almost certainly unjustified. Finally, there is almost no chance that anyone else would seek to register these strings at the top-level, given the cost of applying, and the ease of objection by either of these massive and extremely wealthy entities. This entire process seems like a huge waste of time, kowtowing to two large organizations simply because they are so large and have such powerful lobbyists.
Best, Mike
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> To: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:11 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: john@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@netchoice.org> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@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 noappeal.
· 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.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12
participants (7)
-
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike Roberts -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco