RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
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 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
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>
Thanks John, Here's a draft with this latest edit. Does the Council approve this draft? Stéphane Le 25 oct. 2011 à 10:53, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
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 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
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>
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 à 10:53, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
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 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
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>
I agree Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2011 20:30 An: GNSO Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names New draft. One further edit. Stéphane
At the end of the 3rd paragraph, the sentence "Finally, we understand that the proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top level domains?" should not have a question mark. I would also replace "Finally" with "In addition" as there are several paragraphs to follow, with the last substantive one starting with "Finally". I still believe that we should give examples following the "strings containing" sentence, just as we do for second-level names containing "Olympic". If there is agreement, the 3rd paragraph would then be. 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. Alan At 25/10/2011 02:29 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
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 à 10:53, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
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 âStrings Ineligible for Registrationâ 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 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [<mailto: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 GACâs âProposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDsâ (âProposalâ). 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 âStrings Ineligible for Registrationâ 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 âreservedâ. 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 GACâs desire to âreserveâ 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 âEXAMPLEâ 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 ICANNâs 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 / <http://www.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>
Sorry for jumping in late on this, and thanks to Stephane, Kristina, John, Alan, Tim and others who commented and edited. One comment/suggestion - rather than ask the GAC the question about reservations at the second level (paragraph 3), I suggest collapsing the second (which contains the question) and third sentences to read "We understand this to refer to exact matches of those marks, and that the Proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top-level domains". Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:<john@crediblecontext.com> CC:"GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/25/2011 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks John, Here's a draft with this latest edit. Does the Council approve this draft? Stéphane
Councilors -- The following statement has been published by the RrSG, regarding community requests of registrars. See you this afternoon. Mason ==== ICANN accredited registrars and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers have opened negotiations to amend and update the current Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The negotiations are in response to the development of a list of recommendations made by law enforcement agencies and the broader Internet community to provide increased protections for registrants and greater security overall. The face-to-face negotiations will occur regularly with the intention to arrive at a new agreement prior to ICANN's 43rd public meeting, scheduled for 11-16 March 2012 in San Jose, Costa Rica. To ensure transparency, registrars and ICANN will update the community regarding the substance and progress of negotiations. Decision rationale will be included as part of those communications and at the time the new agreement is published for public comment.
Hi all, Could I please ask you to make your edits in the word doc that I sent previously? It's getting difficult for me to track the suggested edits. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 oct. 2011 à 09:28, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Sorry for jumping in late on this, and thanks to Stephane, Kristina, John, Alan, Tim and others who commented and edited.
One comment/suggestion - rather than ask the GAC the question about reservations at the second level (paragraph 3), I suggest collapsing the second (which contains the question) and third sentences to read "We understand this to refer to exact matches of those marks, and that the Proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top-level domains".
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: <john@crediblecontext.com> CC: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/25/2011 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks John,
Here's a draft with this latest edit.
Does the Council approve this draft?
Stéphane
Done, and attached. Added the word "Olympic" to the first paragraph (as I believe that's what John suggested), my suggestions to paragraph 3 and a couple of typographical fixes. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> CC:"GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/26/2011 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Hi all, Could I please ask you to make your edits in the word doc that I sent previously? It's getting difficult for me to track the suggested edits. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 oct. 2011 à 09:28, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : Sorry for jumping in late on this, and thanks to Stephane, Kristina, John, Alan, Tim and others who commented and edited. One comment/suggestion - rather than ask the GAC the question about reservations at the second level (paragraph 3), I suggest collapsing the second (which contains the question) and third sentences to read "We understand this to refer to exact matches of those marks, and that the Proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top-level domains". Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:<john@crediblecontext.com> CC:"GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/25/2011 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks John, Here's a draft with this latest edit. Does the Council approve this draft? Stéphane
Please find a couple more edits. Thanks for everyone’s help on this letter. I believe we should send this out after our wrap up session. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ 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. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:29 PM Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Done, and attached. Added the word "Olympic" to the first paragraph (as I believe that's what John suggested), my suggestions to paragraph 3 and a couple of typographical fixes. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From:
Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> CC: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/26/2011 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Hi all, Could I please ask you to make your edits in the word doc that I sent previously? It's getting difficult for me to track the suggested edits. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 oct. 2011 à 09:28, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Sorry for jumping in late on this, and thanks to Stephane, Kristina, John, Alan, Tim and others who commented and edited. One comment/suggestion - rather than ask the GAC the question about reservations at the second level (paragraph 3), I suggest collapsing the second (which contains the question) and third sentences to read "We understand this to refer to exact matches of those marks, and that the Proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top-level domains". Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From:
Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> To: <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> CC: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 10/25/2011 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks John, Here's a draft with this latest edit. Does the Council approve this draft? Stéphane
Councillors, Please let me know if there is any opposition to me sending this letter by tomorrow, so that I may send before leaving Dakar if there is no opposition. Thanks, Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 09:02, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Please find a couple more edits. Thanks for everyone’s help on this letter. I believe we should send this out after our wrap up session.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
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.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:29 PM Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
Done, and attached. Added the word "Olympic" to the first paragraph (as I believe that's what John suggested), my suggestions to paragraph 3 and a couple of typographical fixes.
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> CC: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/26/2011 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Hi all,
Could I please ask you to make your edits in the word doc that I sent previously? It's getting difficult for me to track the suggested edits.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 26 oct. 2011 à 09:28, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Sorry for jumping in late on this, and thanks to Stephane, Kristina, John, Alan, Tim and others who commented and edited.
One comment/suggestion - rather than ask the GAC the question about reservations at the second level (paragraph 3), I suggest collapsing the second (which contains the question) and third sentences to read "We understand this to refer to exact matches of those marks, and that the Proposal will not impact current domain name registrations in existing top-level domains".
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: <john@crediblecontext.com> CC: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/25/2011 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names Thanks John,
Here's a draft with this latest edit.
Does the Council approve this draft?
Stéphane
<GAC GNSO Message v0 4.docx>
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Mason Cole -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder