Quick answer: Because they don't want the hassle and cost incurred by other name-holders (clearinghouse, URS/UDRP) and have convinced the GAC that their legal titles are more important than those of the private sector. This is all the more curious because my understanding is that international treaty/law protects the IOC graphic symbol (five rings in that colour/pattern) but not the word "olympic". So... in other words (if this is accurate), they are asking ICANN to extend beyond existing protections in the outside world. At very least, this is not as clear-cut as the GAC would suggest. - Evan On 22 October 2012 14:27, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Aaah, nice catch, Ron!
Very good question indeed!
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Ron Sherwood <ron@vitechnicalservices.com>wrote:
Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto.
*"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."*
*If:* "the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."... *Then:* Why the specific request for protection of these two entities in the first place?
Best regards, Ron
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms.
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<; http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be
protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the
RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56