I am on the group, so feel free to channel thought and opinions to me. A couple of points: - According to the GAC request, "The proposal is based on the unique tapestry of legal protections provided to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement through the Geneva Conventions,1 and to the IOC through the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol2, and through laws in multiple national jurisdictions." The full document is pointed to by the left sidebar of https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee. In other words, there are no other organizations that meet these criteria, or (so I am told) anything close. Of course, that has not stopped a large number of international organizations from requesting similar treatment - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pri.... But based on the Board/GAC request, the IOC and Red Cross are the only ones being discussed at the moment. - Although as pointed out, there may be no generally accepted definition of NGO, we really are not talking about NGOs here, but international treaty-base organizations. So bringing NGOs into it really muddies the water. - The Board has already reserved these names at the TLD level for the first round, although EXACTLY what that means is not clear and clarifying that is the first task of the work group. For instance, it is unclear if according to the AG whether the Red Cross or the IOC themselves could apply for those names, and although Olympics may be prohibited, Olympix or Olympiks (confusingly similar sound) would not. - As Evan has implied, the two cases are somewhat different. Despite the Red Cross cases that John Levine has cited, there is some sympathy for reserving Red Cross, but less so for other various Olympic marks, as there is MUCH larger overlap between them and names used generically and commercially. - Interestingly, the GAC is not asking for "contains" protection at the 2nd level. So RedCross-Haiti-Earthquake-Relief would still be available. This was considered, but I was told that they understood that implementing such a prohibition was not particularly practical. Alan
Hi Michele,
Personally I'd prefer *no* exceptions, confident that conventional TLD objection procedures would prevent any red-cross-related application to come from anyone but the IFRC in Geneva or its authorized agents. I'd even support the ALAC public-interest objection process used for this, and would have no hesitation initiation the objection process myself in such a case.
But the GAC seems hell-bent on having some kind of exception(s).
IIRC, the Red Cross is considered an exceptional institution. I was told by people I trust that there was no concept of a non-profit corporation in Japan before the Red Cross tried to establish, and there was a specific vote in the Diet to allow it. So such exceptionalism is not without precedent.
(And happy birthday, BTW!)
- Evan
On 2 February 2012 10:37, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight < <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>michele at blacknight.ie> wrote:
On 2 Feb 2012, at 14:30, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Should ALAC have a stance on the TLD reservation of the Red Cross and Olympic terms?
Personally, I think they should be handled differently. I have no problem with the Red [Cross|Crescent|Diamond] names (and their multilingual and IDN equivalents) being reserved because these are groups that do charitable work and collect funds for relief of famines, natural disasters and other emergencies.
OTOH, The international olympic movement, while non-profit, does not collect emergency funds in the same way as the Red Cross. Furthermore, I have seen olympic committees in various countries aggressively shut down innocent users (like family-run Greek restaurants using "Olympic" in their name) that are neither competing nor confusing with the athletic organization.
(How soon before they go after the largest Greek airline?)
In any case, my own preference is to support reservation of the Red Cross names but oppose similar protection offered to Olympic ones (and allow contentious applications to be objected to in the appropriate way as required).
Evan
How do you make a policy statement that gives one NGO "special status" without giving it to others?
I like your reasoning - just wondering how it could be worded to be narrow enough ..
Regards
Michele in a personal capacity (if I have one .. )
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar <http://www.blacknight.com/>http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ <http://blacknight.biz>http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: <http://fb.me/blacknight>http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon>http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845