hi Osvaldo, as usual, my engagement/interest in this issue is low and i don't have strong opinions about that happens. the thing that bothers me is the amount of attention and energy it is consuming that could be devoted to other, much broader policy issues. so i'd support just about anything that moves the GNSO off this issue and on to other things. :-) mikey On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:13 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote:

All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT, but due to health problems I wasn’t able to participate in the lasts meeting. I am participating right now. I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP is ready, not allowing any exception. In the meantime a PDP would be develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent but also other IGO and related names. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo

De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16 Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Thomas. I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer this as I was on the registries call. The registries felt like the operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with other reserved names in the past). We believe that the PDP process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the reservations permanent). So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point no exceptions. [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now. Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying discussions…that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp]

The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP. On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names until the outcome of the PDP. Note this does not mean that we as registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues. Stated yet another way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being completed.

I hope that makes sense.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Chuck, thank you for your input.

I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism? I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of operational issues with such approach.

Thanks, Thomas

Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:

I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late.

The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position.

We support the J. Scott compromise: 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. 2. Communicate to the GAC: a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names b. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.) c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. d. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council.

If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Drafting Team Members:

The discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday’s DT call.

Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two:

1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) a) All RCRC and IOC names b) All RCRC names but no IOC names

Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc)

2) RySG Suggested Approach:

a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO’s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: “Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations”

b. Provide a rationale for this position · Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.

c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’).

Yesterday’s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options:

Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).

Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: a. All RCRC and IOC names b. All RCRC names but no IOC names c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal

Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law.

The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August – all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal.

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Brian

Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN

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.

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

All I’d very much welcome your comments on Osvaldo’s request for input. Views? Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: 05 September 2012 19:14 To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT, but due to health problems I wasn’t able to participate in the lasts meeting. I am participating right now. I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP is ready, not allowing any exception. In the meantime a PDP would be develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent but also other IGO and related names. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo _____ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16 Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Thomas. I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer this as I was on the registries call. The registries felt like the operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with other reserved names in the past). We believe that the PDP process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the reservations permanent). So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point no exceptions. [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now. Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying discussions…that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp] The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP. On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names until the outcome of the PDP. Note this does not mean that we as registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues. Stated yet another way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being completed. I hope that makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Chuck, thank you for your input. I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism? I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of operational issues with such approach. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late. The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position. We support the J. Scott compromise: 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. 2. Communicate to the GAC: a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names b. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.) c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. d. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council. If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Drafting Team Members: The discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday’s DT call. Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) a) All RCRC and IOC names b) All RCRC names but no IOC names Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) 2) RySG Suggested Approach: a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO’s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: “Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations” b. Provide a rationale for this position · Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’). Yesterday’s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: a. All RCRC and IOC names b. All RCRC names but no IOC names c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August – all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. Thanks. Best Regards, Brian Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN _____ 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.

I support Osvaldo's suggestion. It seems the most reasonable approach. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Novoa, Osvaldo To: ispcp@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:13 PM Subject: [ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT, but due to health problems I wasn't able to participate in the lasts meeting. I am participating right now. I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP is ready, not allowing any exception. In the meantime a PDP would be develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent but also other IGO and related names. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16 Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Thomas. I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer this as I was on the registries call. The registries felt like the operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with other reserved names in the past). We believe that the PDP process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the reservations permanent). So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point no exceptions. [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now. Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying discussions.that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp] The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP. On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names until the outcome of the PDP. Note this does not mean that we as registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues. Stated yet another way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being completed. I hope that makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Chuck, thank you for your input. I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism? I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of operational issues with such approach. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late. The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position. We support the J. Scott compromise: 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. 2. Communicate to the GAC: a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names b. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.) c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. d. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council. If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Drafting Team Members: The discussion during yesterday's DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday's DT call. Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) a) All RCRC and IOC names b) All RCRC names but no IOC names Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) 2) RySG Suggested Approach: a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO's starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: "Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations" b. Provide a rationale for this position · Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., 'fill in the holes'). Yesterday's meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: a. All RCRC and IOC names b. All RCRC names but no IOC names c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel's office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August - all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. Thanks. Best Regards, Brian Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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.

hi all, here's an interesting article from DomainIncite.com that bears on this issue. http://domainincite.com/10383-secret-icann-briefing-fuels-igo-new-gtlds-deba... mikey Secret ICANN briefing fuels IGO new gTLDs debate Kevin Murphy, September 10, 2012, 08:32:58 (UTC), Domain Policy The Universal Postal Union, newly installed .post registry manager, has launched a withering attack on ICANN for protecting some intergovernmental organizations and not others. Its salvo follows the release of briefing materials — previously redacted — that ICANN’s board was given when it approved the new gTLD program at the Singapore meeting in June 2011. The UPU says that the documents show that ICANN engaged in “ex post facto attempts at justifying legally-flawed decisions” when it decided to give extra protection to the Olympics and Red Cross/Red Crescent movements. As you may recall, these protections were granted by the ICANN board when the program was approved, following lobbying of the Governmental Advisory Committee by both organizations. In the current round, nobody was allowed to apply for gTLDs such as .redcross or .olympic, or translations in dozens of languages. There are also ongoing talks about extending this protection to the second level. Some have argued that this would lead to a “slippery slope” that would resurrect the problematic Globally Protected Marks List, something ICANN and the GAC have denied. They have maintained that the IOC/RC/RC movements are unique — their marks are protected by international treaty and many national laws — and no other groups qualify. Other IGOs disagree. Almost 40 IGOs, including the United Nations and International Telecommunications Union, are lobbying for an additional 1,108 strings to be given the same protection as the Olympics. If they get what they want, four applied-for gTLDs could be rejected outright and dozens of others would be put at risk of failing string similarity reviews. According to the UPU’s latest letter, ICANN’s newly disclosed rationale for giving only the IOC/RC/RC organizations special privileges was based on a flawed legal analysis: most of the recommendations contained in documents such as the Unredacted Paper seem to reflect, in an unambiguous way, ex post facto attempts at justifying legally-flawed decisions in order to narrow even further the necessary eligibility “criteria” for protection of certain strings, apparently so that only two organizations would merit receiving such safeguards under the new gTLD process. In other words, according to the UPU and others, ICANN found itself in a position in June 2011 where it had to throw the GAC a few bones in order to push the new gTLD program out of the door, so it tried to grant the IOC/RC/RC protections in such a way that the floodgates were not opened to other organizations. You can read the unredacted ICANN briefing materials here. The UPU letter, which deconstructs the document, is here. It’s worth noting that the Applicant Guidebook already gives IGOs the explicit right to file Legal Rights Objections against new gTLD applications, even if they don’t have trademark protection. On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:13 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote:

All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT, but due to health problems I wasn’t able to participate in the lasts meeting. I am participating right now. I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP is ready, not allowing any exception. In the meantime a PDP would be develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent but also other IGO and related names. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo

De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16 Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Thomas. I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer this as I was on the registries call. The registries felt like the operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with other reserved names in the past). We believe that the PDP process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the reservations permanent). So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point no exceptions. [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now. Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying discussions…that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp]

The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP. On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names until the outcome of the PDP. Note this does not mean that we as registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues. Stated yet another way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being completed.

I hope that makes sense.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Chuck, thank you for your input.

I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism? I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of operational issues with such approach.

Thanks, Thomas

Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:

I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late.

The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position.

We support the J. Scott compromise: 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. 2. Communicate to the GAC: a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names b. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.) c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. d. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council.

If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Drafting Team Members:

The discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday’s DT call.

Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two:

1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) a) All RCRC and IOC names b) All RCRC names but no IOC names

Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc)

2) RySG Suggested Approach:

a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO’s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: “Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations”

b. Provide a rationale for this position · Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.

c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’).

Yesterday’s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options:

Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).

Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: a. All RCRC and IOC names b. All RCRC names but no IOC names c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal

Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law.

The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August – all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal.

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Brian

Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN

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.

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)