At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in Schedule A be “reserved”.  Does this reservation apply just to exact matches of those marks or does it also apply to strings containing those marks (such as Olympics-Seoul, Olympic-Games, Red-Cross and RedCross-Tsunami)?  In addition, we understand that the proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top level domains.

New draft. One further edit.

Stéphane


Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:50, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> Thanks John,
>
> Here's a draft with this latest edit.
>
> Does the Council approve this draft?
>
> Stéphane
>
> <GAC GNSO Message v0.2.docx>
> Le 25 oct. 2011 Ă  10:53, <john@crediblecontext.com> a Ă©crit :
>
>>

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