February 2012 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Meeting Invitation / ISPCP Call / Monday 23 August at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber-White Aug. 3, 2012

Aug. 3, 2012

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled for on Monday 23 August 2010 at 1400 UTC. Please find the dial-in details below. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ------------------------------------------------------------- Passcodes: Participant: 1385274 Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0489 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4854 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7725 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5235 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1378 1-800-009-646 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-80-004 0800-677-079 BELGIUM 32-2-401-7012 0800-4-9773 BRAZIL 0800-7610709 CHILE 1230-020-2471 CHINA* 86-400-810-4743 10800-712-1185 10800-120-1185 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156479 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-06 800-700-159 DENMARK 45-7014-0229 8088-5346 ESTONIA 800-011-1092 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-25-91 080-563-9648 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20599 0800-101-2179 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0630 00800-12-5998 HONG KONG 852-2286-5624 800-968-767 HUNGARY 06-800-15230 INDIA 000-800-852-1209 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3492 IRELAND 353-1-431-9674 1800-992-641 ISRAEL 1-80-9214131 ITALY 39-02-3600-0507 800-985-846 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4755 00531-12-1423 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5146 00531-12-1423 LATVIA 8000-2933 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1305 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8114 MEXICO 001-866-761-6529 NETHERLANDS 31-20-713-3466 0800-020-3473 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4633 0800-445-270 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-05 800-11825 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072096 PERU 0800-53765 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3702 POLAND 00-800-1210066 PORTUGAL 8008-12795 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9763011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9189 800-120-4141 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-07 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93386 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1044 00798-14800-6315 SPAIN 34-91-414-08-12 800-099-807 SWEDEN 46-8-506-92-118 0200-897-066 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4209 0800-000-663 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7338 00801-137-557 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65077 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9007 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3207 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2107 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7098-0710 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1407 0800-279-9198 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3427 USA 1-210-795-0464 866-617-1530 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3717 Certain dialing restrictions can apply from specific countries. To ensure that your participants have the correct dialing procedures, please include this link in your invitation: https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/audioconferencing/global_access.php

6 30

RV: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 29, 2012

Feb. 29, 2012

FYI Best regards, [cid:image001.jpg@01CCF6EB.4C9D81C0] Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Tel: +598 2928 6444 E-mail: onovoa(a)antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 29 de Febrero de 2012 02:41 a.m. Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org CC: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report FYI. Please circulate amongst your constituencies, stakeholder groups and Advisory Committees. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:38 PM To: Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; mark.carvell(a)culture.gsi.gov.uk; SRadell(a)ntia.doc.gov; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Cc: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de; Neuman, Jeff Subject: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report Heather, Mark and Suzanne, As promised, please find enclosed a status report from the Chair of the IOC/RC Drafting Team of the GNSO Council that has been tasked with advising the GNSO Council with respect to the September 2011 GAC proposal on permanently protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second levels for new gTLDs. Although this report was shared with the members of the Drafting Team, it was drafted by me as the Chair, and as such is not an official report from the Drafting Team. It represents the Chair's current understanding of the discussions of the Drafting Team. Each of the recommendations addressed in this report are still under review by the GNSO Community. We are providing this report to assist in the discussions between the Drafting Team, interested GNSO Councilors and GAC members on March 2, 2012. Please feel free to forward this report to the other members of the GAC as I will be sending this to the GNSO Council as well. We look forward to a productive call this Friday as well as in Costa Rica at the ICANN meeting. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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/> ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE***
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 28, 2012

Feb. 28, 2012

Dejar All, This would be the final version of the option recommended by the drafting team on the IOC/RC reserved names. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Fecha: 25 de febrero de 2012 00:26:10 GMT-02:00 Para: <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] *** FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: OPTION 7 v. 2 WITH FREEZE ON LANGUAGE*** All, In line with Steve’s suggestion, I am freezing the language on Option 7 as is with the suggested changes from Lanre and Greg. We could probably word smith this forever. Please consider this the final version for seeking input and for raising during the call with the GAC next week. In the meantime, in addition to the status report, I will begin to draft the straw man of options for the second level. ******************************************************************* Option 7: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified Reserved Names,� meaning: a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the “IOC�), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their respective components as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review: i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or 2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must: a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. 3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. 4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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/> ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

3 2

Fwd: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 26, 2012

Feb. 26, 2012

Dear All, This is the proposal for second level protection of the IOC/RC names. Please let me know if you have any comment. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Para: "gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposals to Discuss with respect to Protections of the IOC/RCRC Marks at the Second Level All, Going into next week, Costa Rica and beyond, we need to also focus on protections at the second-level to see if we can find consensus within the group on the GAC proposals. As we did initially with top-level, I am drafting this straw man to lay out the GAC proposal along with the Questions we will need to discuss. For each question, I have laid out what I believe are the options available to us to recommend. There may be other options I have not thought of, so the first order of business for each question is to discuss whether there are any other options available and to document those. Then, we will discuss the pros and cons with respect to each option and the merits associated with them. If people want to express their opinions as to which option they prefer on any question, that would be great. If not, and there is no pressure to pick an option in the immediate future. I am also attaching the original GAC advice along with the Q & A document. I. GAC PROPOSALS AT THE SECOND LEVEL With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the new gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved names. The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A attached to their proposal. They recommend the identical terms be protected in the 6 UN languages with an “encouragement” to registries to provide additional languages. Please note that the GAC in their Q&A document did not ask to protect “similar” strings to the terms in Schedule A, but only identical matches. Questions 1. Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level in all new gTLDs? i. Option 1: No, there should be no change to the schedule of second-level reserved names currently in the new gTLD Registry Agreement. ii. Option 2: Yes, we should change the schedule of second-level reserved names currently in the new gTLD Registry Agreement to include: 1. Option 2(a)(i): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages 2. Option 2(a)(ii): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages 3. Option 2(b)(i): All of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages 4. Option 2(b)(ii): A subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages 5. Option 3(a): All of the RCRC and IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages 6. Option 3(b): All of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages, but only a subset of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages. 7. Option 3(c): A subset of the RCRC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages, but all of the IOC terms set forth in Schedule A in the 6 UN languages. ADDITIONAL NOTES AND QUESTIONS ON #1 * If we were to select any of the options involving a subset of terms, we would then need to consider which of the terms **All of the options above, I have included the 6 UN languages, but of course we can consider protecting just a subset of those languages as well. ***The question posed above talks about protecting in ALL new gTLDs, but are there any new gTLDs in which these protections should not apply 2. If we have selected any option above that allows for the protection of either or both of the IOC or RCRC terms (or just a subset of those terms) what type of reserved name would this be? i. Option 1: The reserved names should be treated as “forbidden names” that can never be registered (not even by those organizations) – NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they want. ii. Option 2: The reserved names should be treated as “modified forbidden names” that can only be registered by the applicable organizations or their component parts. iii. Option 3: Like a 2 letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes. In this case, the Registry Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the IOC or the RCRC as applicable. iv. Option 4: Like Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s.. In this case, the IOC/RCRC terms would be initially reserved, but the reservation of the IOC/RCRC terms may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reached agreement with the IOC and/or RCRC as applicable. 3. If we have chosen either option ii, iii or iv for Question 2, what would be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list for such option? NOTE, I HAVE NOT LAID OUT THE OPTIONS YET FOR THIS ONE AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM. IF AND WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ADDRESS, OPTIONS WILL BE CRAFTED. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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> <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> <http://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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

IOC/RC
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 22, 2012

Feb. 22, 2012

Dear all, This would be the situation up till now of the discussions regarding Olimpic and Red Cross protection. Today will be the last conference before Costa Rica. Please let me know if you have any comment. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Fecha: 17 de febrero de 2012 23:27:58 GMT-02:00 Para: "Jim Bikoff" <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7 Thanks Jim. That answers my question. Chuck From: Jim Bikoff [mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>); gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: Summing up Option 7 Chuck, I am suggesting that. The protection granted we believe applies to identical matches whether or not the names are registered by the protected entities. Best, Jim Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ________________________________ From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:58:10 +0000 To: Jim Bikoff<jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>; Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>)<Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org><gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7 I have one question Jim: Are you suggesting that an exact match of one of the names should not be allowed to be registered by another entity even if the RC or IOC does not elect to register the names? Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:22 PM To: Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>); gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7 Jeff, This note, like yours, is made not as an IPC member, but rather in my individual capacity. This note includes the Olympic and Red Cross terms, although we understand that the IRC will submit its own comments on the options. The first parts of Option 7 look appropriate as you have summarized them, i.e.: "Option 7: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names� meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this initial review." In section c), the core issue is, if an application fails to pass initial string similarity review, what standard should be used for an applicant to try to overcome the adverse review? I suggest: (1) If the applied-for TLD matches any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3 (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC/RC. (2) If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those protected terms, the applicant may attempt to: (a) obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or Red Cross; or (b) claim that it has a legitimate interest in the string; and (c) explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, the Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity. (d) A determination in favor of the applicant under this provision would not preclude the IOC, the Red Cross, or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. {Explanation: In (b), a claim of "legitimate interest" would encompass a broad range of attempted justifications (including, as you have noted,"traditional knowledge and cultural heritage,"), without unduly suggesting that the applicant has "rights," or that the claim of legitimacy would prevail over the protected terms. A showing of ordinary trademark rights would not typically suffice to overcome the protections afforded the Olympic and Red Cross marks, because they are afforded superior legislative protection that trumps ordinary trademark rights. This was enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee and International Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). See also the Greek Statute Article 3 Law 2598/1998, a translation of which is attached, reserving the right to use the terms "Olympic" and "Olympiad" to the Olympic Committee. In (c), by the same token, the IOC and Red Cross are afforded a high level of statutory protection against dilution of their trademarks through use by unauthorized parties, even in the absence of confusing similarity. See e.g., San Francisco Arts & Athletics, supra. So a showing that an applied-for TLD is not confusingly similar to a protected string would not, standing alone, overcome an initial refusal. If, on the other hand, in an exceptional case, an applicant can demonstrate that it has an established legitimate interest in its applied-for TLD string, and that the TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, the Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity, then that might constitute an appropriate basis for an appeal, to be considered on a case by case basis. In (d), the provisions allowing an applicant to seek recourse from an adverse initial string similarity review permit the applicant to express its claims fully. These provisions should not be construed to imply that an applicant's claims would necessarily prevail over the protected terms, nor should they be construed to prejudice, restrict or diminish in any way the IOC 's, Red Cross' or other interested parties' ability to enforce their legal rights and contest an application.} Best regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

ASO review
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Feb. 21, 2012

Feb. 21, 2012

I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting article by Milton Mueller re ASO governance (http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/2/8/4994150.html?utm…) based on the ASO review (http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/120123-ASOReview-V49.pdf) BTW the review was elaborated by the former ICANN Board member, Raimundo Beca, e.a. I wonder whether this review is been brought to more attention of the ICANN community by a public comment period? Maybe we should discuss this in CR Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Council meeting on 16 February 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Feb. 19, 2012

Feb. 19, 2012

All: at the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 the following items have lead to further actions: * Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time: on my request this shall remain on the GNSO agenda. I was asked to come up with a proposal how to handle it. My suggestion is to co-operate with staff (Liz Gasster offered support). One option could be that the Council could also direct the likely forthcoming RAA PDP to include this accessibility element. Timeline is to be checked as to whether a related motion will be disussed at the CR meetings. If this is the case an ISPCP discussion at constituency day in CR only may be too late. Any idea from your side is welcome! * Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois: this was deferred to CR * CR GNSO agenda: was adopted. Topics suggested to be discussed with Board and GAC on Sunday: RAA, IOC/Red Cross names, WhoIs Review Team Final Report The following resolutions were passed: 1. Consent Agenda * Approval that the Recommendations Report<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation…> on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Recommendation 9, part 2 be sent to the ICANN Board. * Approval of the termination of the Open Council Drafting Team. * Approval of new calls for volunteers for the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). 2. Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request 'ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation'; WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm) WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html ); WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html ); WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf) Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 16, 2012

Feb. 16, 2012

Dear All, An update on the IOC/RC Working Group. Up till now I have received no comment from anybody in the ISPCP Constituency. The next meeting is programmed for the 22nd, next week. Best regards, [cid:image001.jpg@01CCEC99.1120B790] Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Tel: +598 2928 6444 E-mail: onovoa(a)antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Febrero de 2012 10:06 a.m. Para: Alan Greenberg; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7 I agree with Alan. I see no harm in allowing the application to make their case and there could be value added. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:58 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7 Jeff, I think this is pretty much what we discussed. However, I would like to again make the case for a bit more under c. I belive that demonstrating rights to the string is a part of what the applicant should be able to do. But I also strongly believe that they should be given the opportunity to explain why they believe that the new TLD will not be confusingly similar to one of the protected strings. In the call, there was reference to this being a difficult thing to determine, and that it is subjective, and I agree to both. But the rejection of a string under the String Similarity Review is just that - subjective and a judgement call. That call will ultimately be made by the review panel. All the trademark rights in the world will not change their mind if they feel there is a strong expectation of user confusion, but the applicant SHOULD be given an opportunity to explain why they do not think that is the case. What they say can then be considered by the review panel in their final deliberation. Alan At 15/02/2012 11:41 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: All, As a result of the call, I am trying to sum up what I believe option 7 is for Question 1 (see below), so that we can get feedback from our respective groups. Can you please forward to me an comments on this as to whether this matches your understanding of what was discussed? Thanks. __________________________________________________________________________________________ * Option 7: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) Unlike other applied for gTLDs, however, the process would not end here. Applicants for these strings, or those strings found to be similar through the String Similarity Review will have the opportunity in an "extended evaluation" to demonstrate that they have rights or legitimate interests to the strings they are seeking. - This could be in the form of a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable; or - A demonstration of trademark rights in the strings - Other factors? d) This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross from bringing a legal rights objection if they disagree with the "determination of rights or legitimate interests". Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 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-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:04 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call All, Here is my proposed Agenda for the call on Wednesday. Please let me know if you want to add anything else. I. Schedule (including Costa Rica sessions) II. Recap of Last Call III. Feedback from Team/Constituencies/SGs/ACs on Top-Level Options IV. Next Steps / Prep for GNSO Call & Possible Status call with GAC I am a little disappointed by the lack of e-mails in the last two weeks on the questions presented, so please come to the meeting ready to contribute. Thanks. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled "Strings Ineligible for Registration" and would not invoke String Similarity Review. * Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered "Reserved Names" b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. * Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as "reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. * Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. * Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in "multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet." c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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/> 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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

Main points from ISPCP call 9 Feb 2012
by tony holmes Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Update on the Costa Rica meeting. 1. ISPCP session The ISPCP Constituency meeting will take place in Costa Rica on Tuesday 13th March from 14.00 to 16.30 The draft agenda for the meeting is shown below; . Welcome & Introductions . WHOIS: RT Report and Recommendations; questions/survey of the WHOIS WG . GNSO issues . SSR: findings of the Review Team . RAA: status of discussion and ISPCP positions . Report from CSG Budget Group and ICANN FY13 Budget & Strategic Plan The intention is to gather input which will then form the Constituency response on the WHOIS report and result in an agreed position on the RAA. ISPCP members are requested to review material relating to these two issues in advance. At 14.30 the meeting will become a 'members only' session to discuss . ISPCP organizational matters . Dates for future ISPCP Conference Calls . Discussion of possible ISPCP actions related to future UN based forums that could impact the Internet e.g. WTSA/WCIT/WSIS+10 etc 2. Commercial Stakeholder Group meetings in Costa Rica There will be a CSG breakfast with the GAC on Tuesday 13th March. PLEASE ADVISE THE CHAIRMAN IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BREAKFAST MEETING. Possible topics to be discussed include WHOIS RT report and ICANN acting in the public interest, Reserved list for domain names (RedCross/IOC) - to be confirmed The CSG session will follow breakfast with the GAC, but will break for a session with the ICANN Board at either 11.00 or 11.15 - to be confirmed. Possible topics to be covered include WHOIS, Outreach, Public comment procedures, RAA - to be confirmed. Consideration is being given to the possibility of proposing a 'joint chairs/representatives' session to consider how Constituencies should interact with the policy council on issues which are not specifically gTLD policy considerations. 3. GNSO Council issues. The Constituency are still awaiting advice from Council on issues where they require specific feedback during the Council public meeting in Costa Rica. ISPCP Councillors will raise this with Council. WHOIS - It was agreed the ISPCP will continue to support the proposed WHOIS survey studies as planned by the GNSO Council, in addition to the work undertaken by the RT team which is now subject to public comment. Date of next ISPCP call To be agreed at the Costa Rica Constituency meeting.

1 0

ISPCP call today
by tony holmes Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

The agenda for today's call is; - Update on the Costa Rica meeting - Agenda for the ISPCP Constituency meeting - Arrangements for the CSG session in Costa Rica - Meetings with GAC and Board - WHOIS studies - Urgent issues from GNSO Council I anticipate this call should take no longer than 40 minutes, so please join promptly. Gisella has circulated call-in details in a separate email. Thanks Tony

1 0