November 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Council dates through to December 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please review the proposed dates for the Council meetings through to December 2013 and feel free to comment. 17 January at 20:00 UTC - already on the calendar 14 February at 11:00 UTC 14 March at 15:00 UTC 10 April Public Council meeting Beijing 14:00 or 15:00 Local time 16 May at 20:00 UTC 13 June at 11:00 UTC 17 July Public Council meeting Durban 14:00 or 15:00 Local time 5 September at 15:00 - 18:00 UTC proposed three (3) hour meeting to make up for missed August meeting These dates are provisional - the ICANN AGM date is as yet unknown. 10 October at 20:00 UTC 7 November at 11:00 UTC 5 December at 15:00UTC Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14no… Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 14 November 2012 Comment Close: 14 December 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14nov12-en.htm> Reply Open: 15 December 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-d-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 4 January 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): As a required step in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP), ICANN Staff is seeking input on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-12nov1…> [PDF, 725 KB]. Current Status: Following the request for an Issue Report by the GNSO Council on 17 October 2012, ICANN Staff has now published the Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D for public comment. Next Steps: The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for its consideration. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: Policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20%28IRTP%29%20Part%20D%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN Staff is seeking comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-12nov1…> [PDF, 725 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses: * Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; * Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; * Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf); * Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; * Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; * Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the ICANN community to provide its views on the issues outlined above and on whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated. Further data and supporting information on these issues are especially welcomed as most of these issues were originally raised in 2005. This Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for its consideration. Section II: Background The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. The IRTP aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The IRTP Part D is the fourth in a series of Policy Development Processes (PDPs) that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4) Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-12nov1…> [PDF, 725 KB] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm> Section IV: Additional Information N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report IRTP Part D
by Marika Konings Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D which was published for public comment today (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14nov 12-en.htm). Comments can be submitted until 14 December, followed by a reply period. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Papers from new gTLD update
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Hello All, From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Attached are the documents that were used in the webinar. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

New gTLD update webinar - in 2 hours
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

See: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Date: 14 November 2012 Time: 20:00 - 21:30 UTC / 12:00pm - 1:30pm PST Dial in: 1-877-941-1225 or 1-480-629-9846 , for international numbers http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars/dial-in-14nov… Conference ID: 4576168 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldwebinar

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#105]
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2012 15:48 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#105] Name of Officer: * Ching Chiao Officer Email Address: * ching.chiao(a)gmail.com<mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, November 14, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * GNSO Councillor Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Ching Chiao will be unable to attend the 15 November GNSO Council meeting due to a travel conflict. If needed, his vote is proxied to Jeff Neuman. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Ching Chiao will be unable to attend the 15 November GNSO Council meeting due to a travel conflict. If needed, his vote is proxied to Jeff Neuman. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, November 15, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Jeff Neuman

1 0

Reminder: Revised Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find the revised draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 at 11:00 UTC posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15nov12-en.htm And on the Wiki (where you will find the latest updates) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+November+… Motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+November… Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 November 2012 No substantive changes have been made, but the order of the items has been changed and each item is clearly marked, Motion, Update or Information. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 00:00 Wellington Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13789.html> will be approved on 15 November 2012. The minutes of the New GNSO Council meeting 17 October 2012<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13798.html> will be approved on 16 November 2012. 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Introductory Remarks from New Chair (10 minutes) Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes) IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board Approval - Following the approval of the IRTP Part C Recommendations at the GNSO Council meeting in Toronto, ICANN Staff has now prepared the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board for the GNSO Council's approval. (See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/irtp-c-gnso-council-report-07nov12-en.pdf) Item 4: MOTION - RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-…) The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 1: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson or Zahid Jamil). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 5: MOTION - Second Level Protections for certain IOC / RCRC names in the first round of New GTLDs (10 minutes) The IOC/RC Drafting Team has forwarded its recommendations that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendations [insert link to recommendation] providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names at the second level, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of this. Refer to motion 2: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 6: MOTION: Approval of IGO-INGO Protection PDP WG Charter (10 Minutes) Pursuant to its 17 October 2012 motion, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and created a Working Group on an expedited basis to evaluate the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non- Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Working Group has developed a charter for this PDP {link to proposed charter} and the Council must now consider a motion to approve the charter. Refer to motion 3: http://tinyurl.com/chw8ooo 6.1 Reading of the motion (Lanre Ajayi) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). 6.4 If motion carries, selection of Council Liaison to WG. Item 7: UPDATE - Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Selection Process and Timeline Discussion (5 minutes) There is a pending call for applications to serve on the ATRT 2 as independent expert or as volunteer team member in representation of an ICANN SO/AC, as reflected in the announcement - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm - and Call for Applicants - http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-e…. As part of this process, the GNSO Council will be asked to endorse candidates. 7.1 Update from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next Steps Item 8: UPDATE - Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has worked on an Advice Letter for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Following withdrawal of the motion to approve the Advice Letter, the WG is working on an updated Advice Letter. This is a discussion item. 8.1 Update from [Berry Cobb] 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: UPDATE - Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) (10 minutes) On September 18, 2012, Kurt Pritz wrote to the GNSO Council Chair to inform the Council of ongoing discussions on the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. This was discussed in Toronto and has now been followed up by an email update to the Council (November 06, 2012). The Council agreed on a course of action in Toronto and the purpose of this discussion is to ensure the Council is up-to-date and to consider whether or not any other or different course of action is required. This is a discussion item. 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps (If any). Item 10: UPDATE - Whois Review Team Final Report Recommendations (10 min.) The GNSO Council sent a letter to the Board commenting on the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendations, in advance of the Board's meeting on 8 November 2012. Staff will update the Council on the results from this Board Meeting, including any resolutions adopted, and any next steps with respect to this issue. 10.1 Update on the Board Meeting (Margie Milam) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps Item 11: UPDATE- Defensive Registrations Discussion (10 Minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287 to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss whether to undertake any additional work on this topic, especially in light of the continued discussions in Toronto on this topic. 11.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next Steps Item 12: INFORMATION - GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes) In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN. The GNSO was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of policy. 12.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 12.2 Discussion 12.3 Next Steps Item 13: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 13.1 Liaison to ccNSO to replace Rafik Dammak Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 - next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/8swe78k Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording & presentation of Chair's Induction to the GNSO Council Tuesday, 13 November 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the Induction to the GNSO Council by the Chair held on Tuesday, 13 November, 2012 at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#nov http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121113-en.mp3 The slide presentation is also posted on this page and can be directly viewed at : http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-council-13nov12-en.pdf Please note that all MP3 recordings and transcripts are found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar (Click on the month) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: AW: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 12, 2012

Nov. 12, 2012

Wolfgang, that is all quite interesting (really!), but I'm not sure about the relevance to this motion since "IOC" is not one of the strings for which the GAC asked for protection. Alan At 12/11/2012 12:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Hi everybody > >below are a number of recognized organisations >which have the same acronym (IOC) as the International Olympic Committee ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/Intergovernmental_Oceanographi…>Intergovernmental >Oceanographic Commission ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/International_Ornithological_C…>International >Ornithological Committee ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/w/index.php?title=International_Oil…>International >Oil Company ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/Indian_Oil_Corporation>Indian >Oil Corporation ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/Icon_of_Coil>Icon >of Coil, a Norwegian Musicgroup International >Outreach Church (which has <http://www.ioc.org>www.ioc.org) > >IOC stands also for ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/Inversion_of_Control>Inversion >of Control International Organized Crime Integrated optical circuit ><https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/wiki/Initial_Operating_Capability>Initial >Operating Capability > >BTW, <http://www.ioc.info>www.ioc.info or ><http://www.ioc.biz>www.ioc.biz are available (via Network Solutions) > >Here is what you will find under <http://www.ioc.com>www.ioc.com > >Registrant: >Inter Office Communications Inc >PO BOX 618 >New Palestine, IN 46163 >US > >Domain Name: IOC.COM > >Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: ><http://reversewhois.domaintools.com/?email=171e626d49e711bb51893ec429cf9ebf>Brant, >Steven B >Inter Office Communications Inc >PO BOX 618 >New Palestine, IN 46163 >US >317.861 5198 fax: 317.861 5198 > >Record expires on 30-Dec-2015. >Record created on 28-Dec-1994. > >Domain servers in listed order: > >NS.NETFRONTS.COM >NS2.NETFRONTS.COM > >Difficult to say what will go and what not ;-(((( > > > >wolfgang > > >---------- >Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org im Auftrag von Volker Greimann >Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 17:35 >An: Jen Wolfe >Cc: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org >Betreff: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND >PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND >INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES > >Hi Jen, > >the legal protections of the terms in question >for the IOC and the RCRC are not >all-encompassing, i.e. do not affect existing >rights or use in totally unrelated areas. Many >trademarks for the term Olympic exist that the >IOC can do nothing about. Such other legitimate >enterprises may normally be entitled to >register, own and use the domain name >olympic.nyc, as an example. The special legal >protection affords it protection against >illegitimate use or as you say the attempt to >leverage the goodwill associated with the IOCs >brands, but there is no right of the IOC that >prevents legitimate uses of the term. > >The negative effect results from the fact that >the proposed policy would effectively exclude >legitimate applicants from the registration of >the desired name in the sunrise of a TLD. > >Do not forget that these terms may also carry >meaning beyond the protected use. Olympic for >example can reference a specific regional >origin, the mountain of the greek gods, etc. > >I am not suggesting there should not be any >protection, but the protection that is there >should be reasonable and measured to prevent abuse but allow legitimate use. > >Best regards, > >Volker > > >>Hi Jeff & Volker, >> >>I apologize if I am asking an overly simplistic >>question as one of the new GNSO Council >>members, but isnt the purpose of this motion >>and PDP to ensure that internet users are not >>misdirected when looking for the one true Red >>Cross or IOC? If I am reading the motion >>correctly, the intention is to reserve only >>exact matches. How is Olympic paints impacted >>negatively by this reservation? They chose >>their brand knowing there is a one true IOC >>and, most likely, intended to leverage the >>goodwill associated with the Olympic name. It >>would seem it is in the interest of the greater >>internet community to protect the IOC and Red >>Cross versus brand owners in terms of >>reservations of rights. But again, Im new to >>the council, so I apologize if I am missing any >>history here that has already addressed this issue. >> >>With kindest regards, >> >>Jennifer >> >>jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB >>managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy ADVISORY firm >>managing partner, Wolfe, Sadler, Breen, Morasch >>& Colby, a law firm serving global clients >>IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 >>Follow Me: >>Blog: Moneyball changed baseball will gTLDs change the internet? >> >>4430 Carver Woods Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45242 >>513 746 2801 direct line | 513 746 2828 fax >>Privileged/confidential information may be >>contained in this message. If you are not the >>addressee indicated in this message (or >>responsible for delivery of the message to such >>person), you may not copy or deliver this >>message to anyone. In such case, you should >>destroy this message and kindly notify the >>sender by reply email. Please advise >>immediately if you or your employer do not >>consent to Internet email for messages of this >>kind. Opinions, conclusions and other >>information in this message that do not relate >>to the official business of my firm shall be >>understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. >> >>From: >><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann >>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:52 AM >>To: Neuman, Jeff >>Cc: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND >>PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >>CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND >>INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES >> >>Hi Jeff, >> >>even if the reservation is temporary this will >>result in that the potential applicants are >>effectively disenfranchised from the >>opportunity to participate in the Sunrise >>periods of any given TLD. I don't think that >>registry operators and registrars will be >>willing to entertain a second sunrise in each >>and every new TLD just for these strings, which >>would mean that rights holders would have to >>compete with other third parties once the reservation were lifted. >> >>While the IOC and RCRC have internationally >>established protections in place, these >>protections are not all-encompassing and allow >>for other legitimate uses of these terms. >>Consequently, any protections for these strings >>we implement in addition to the existing >>protections should also take into consideration other legitimate rights. >> >>I am not opposed to additional protections in >>general, however these should be fair and >>balanced. I agree that the worst case scenario >>you detail is a distinct problem, but there >>should be possible solutions for that issue, >>such as a specific warning for registering >>parties at the time of application for sunrise >>validation, or the right to participate in the >>sunrise despite the reservation (i.e. the >>sunrise application would not automatically >>fail as with standard reservations, but either >>remain pending until the PDP is done, or be >>processed as usual but lead to a right to >>register upon availability instead of instant registration). >> >>I agree that we should avoid being cornered by >>our current decision if the PDP comes out >>differently, I am just looking for more >>flexibility to allow for alternative solutions >>that would achieve the same goal. >> >>Best, >> >> >>Volker Greimann >>Volker, >> >>Please note that the recommendations are for >>temporary reservations pending the outcome of >>the PDP. You may be correct in your ultimate >>conclusion and that may be the way the PDP >>comes out. But out of practicality, if the PDP >>comes out the other way (that the names should >>be protected), then the only way to >>realistically implement that would be if the >>names were reserved in the first place. It >>would be impossible to take back the names once >>they are registered by third >>parties. Therefore, the Drafting Team believes >>that the names should be reserved initially >>until the PDP is completed. Worst case >>scenario if we adopt this measure is that the >>PDP comes out that the names should not be >>protected and then we allow for the release of >>the names at that time. If we took your >>approach and the names should have been >>protected (assuming the PDP comes out that way), we are stuck. >> >>I hope this helps explain the Drafting Team >>position without in any way downplaying your >>opposition to the ultimate reservation. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Jeffrey J. Neuman >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >> >> >> >>From: Volker Greimann >>[<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] >>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:49 AM >>To: Neuman, Jeff; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND >>PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >>CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND >>INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES >> >>Dear Jeff, dear fellow councillors, >> >>not trying to ruffle any feathers here, >>especially at this late stage, but I have >>strong objections to the concept of >>implementing blanket mandatory restrictions to >>the legitimate rights of potential domain >>owners to apply for certain strings on the >>second level based solely on the lobbying power >>of the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The >>proposed reserving of the listed terms >>effectively removes the ability of other >>potential rights holders in these strings to >>apply for their trademarks or other name rights >>in the sunrise phase of any newly launched >>gTLD, especially since the TMCH warning process >>would provide the protected entities and the >>applicant with ample warning of the potential >>conflict during the launch. Only once the >>minimum duration of the TMCH protection in >>newly launched TLDs expires does further protection become necessary. >> >>A quick search shows numerous such potential >>applicants for the string "Olympic" alone: >>restaurants, an airline, a paint company, a >>travel agency, hotels, a college, a dairy >>company and many more, none of which infringe >>upon the legally protected rights of the above >>organizations by use of the string "olympic". >>The blanket restriction therefore seems as an >>overreach, especially since effective >>protection mechanisms are already implemented during the launch. >> >>A more differentiated approach therefore seems >>appropriate, such as a requirement for new gTLD >>registries to add the affected strings to the >>reserved list only after the TMCH is no longer >>effective for the TLD, or allowing Sunrise >>applications despite the restriction. >> >>While I understand and agree with the need to >>implement some form of protections for the >>above organizations, such protections should >>not infringe on third party rights to apply for >>the registration of domain names that match >>their legal rights in an undue manner. >> >>Best, >> >>Volker Greimann >> >> >> >> >> >>All, >> >>On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am >>pleased to present the following motion which >>was supported by the Drafting Team. For the >>record, I will note that the recommendations >>were not supported by the Non-Commercial >>Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were >>supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, >>the, Intellectual Property Constituency, >>Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, the >>representative from the ALAC, and those >>representatives from the International Olympic >>Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The >>Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. >> >>Thanks. >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >>MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST >>ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED >>CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES >> >>Made by: Jeff Neuman >>Seconded by: >> >>WHEREAS: >> >>The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized >>the President and CEO to implement the new >>gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation >>of text concerning protection for specific >>requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top >>level only during the initial application >>round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy >>advice based on the global public interest, . . >>." >>(<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) >> >>The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by >>the GNSO Council has considered a number of >>different options with respect to protections >>of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response >>to the GAC proposal to provide permanent >>protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDS; >> >>The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting >>Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide >>temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC >>names, was posted for public comment on 28 >>September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012; >> >>The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy >>development process (PDP) to evaluate possible >>protections for certain international >>organization names in all gTLDs, including, >>specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and >> >>Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends >>that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board >>that it adopt the second recommendation of the >>IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary >>reservation of the exact match IOC/RC >>names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. >> >>NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: >> >>That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC >>Drafting Teams recommendation to temporarily >>reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second >>level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 >>of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC >>recommendation of 14 September 2011pending the >>outcome of the recently launched policy >>development process involving International >>Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations. >> >>That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the >>IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in >>producing these recommendations, and hereby >>disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and >> >>That the Chair of the GNSO Council is >>authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board. >> >> >>Jeffrey J. Neuman >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >>46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >>Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: >>+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / >><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. >> >> >> >>Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >> >> >> >>Volker A. Greimann >> >>- Rechtsabteilung - >> >> >> >>Key-Systems GmbH >> >>Im Oberen Werk 1 >> >>66386 St. Ingbert >> >>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> >>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> >>Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> >> >>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> >><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >>/ www.BrandShelter.com >> >> >> >>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> >><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >> >>www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> >> >>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin >> >>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> >>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 >> >> >> >>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> >><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu >> >> >> >>Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und >>nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. >>Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung >>oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger >>ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht >>für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich >>mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. >> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> >> >>Best regards, >> >> >> >>Volker A. Greimann >> >>- legal department - >> >> >> >>Key-Systems GmbH >> >>Im Oberen Werk 1 >> >>66386 St. Ingbert >> >>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> >>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> >>Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> >> >>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> >><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >>/ www.BrandShelter.com >> >> >> >>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >> >><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >> >>www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> >> >>CEO: Alexander Siffrin >> >>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> >>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 >> >> >> >>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> >><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu >> >> >> >>This e-mail and its attachments is intended >>only for the person to whom it is addressed. >>Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any >>content of this email. You must not use, >>disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. >>If an addressing or transmission error has >>misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the >>author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. >> >> >> >>Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >> >> >> >>Volker A. Greimann >> >>- Rechtsabteilung - >> >> >> >>Key-Systems GmbH >> >>Im Oberen Werk 1 >> >>66386 St. Ingbert >> >>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> >>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> >>Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> >> >>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> >><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >>/ www.BrandShelter.com >> >> >> >>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> >><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >> >>www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> >> >>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin >> >>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> >>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 >> >> >> >>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> >><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu >> >> >> >>Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und >>nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. >>Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung >>oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger >>ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht >>für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich >>mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. >> >> >>-------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> >> >>Best regards, >> >> >> >>Volker A. Greimann >> >>- legal department - >> >> >> >>Key-Systems GmbH >> >>Im Oberen Werk 1 >> >>66386 St. Ingbert >> >>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> >>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> >>Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> >> >>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> >><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >>/ www.BrandShelter.com >> >> >> >>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >> >><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >> >>www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> >> >>CEO: Alexander Siffrin >> >>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> >>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 >> >> >> >>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> >><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu >> >> >> >>This e-mail and its attachments is intended >>only for the person to whom it is addressed. >>Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any >>content of this email. You must not use, >>disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. >>If an addressing or transmission error has >>misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the >>author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >-- >Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > >Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > >Volker A. Greimann >- Rechtsabteilung - > >Key-Systems GmbH >Im Oberen Werk 1 >66386 St. Ingbert >Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > >Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net ><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >/ www.BrandShelter.com > >Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: ><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >www.twitter.com/key_systems > >Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin >Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > >Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP ><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu > >Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und >nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede >Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder >Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist >unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie >bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns >per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > >-------------------------------------------- > >Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > >Best regards, > >Volker A. Greimann >- legal department - > >Key-Systems GmbH >Im Oberen Werk 1 >66386 St. Ingbert >Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > >Web: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net ><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>www.domaindiscount24.com >/ www.BrandShelter.com > >Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: ><http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.key-systems.net/facebook >www.twitter.com/key_systems > >CEO: Alexander Siffrin >Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > >Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP ><http://www.keydrive.lu/>www.keydrive.lu > >This e-mail and its attachments is intended only >for the person to whom it is addressed. >Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any >content of this email. You must not use, >disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If >an addressing or transmission error has >misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the >author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > >

1 0

MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Neuman, Jeff Nov. 12, 2012

Nov. 12, 2012

All, On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team. For the record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual Property Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, the representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES Made by: Jeff Neuman Seconded by: WHEREAS: The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDS; The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012; The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations. That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

6 11