On 18 November 2012 12:07, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote: I'd see if there was interest in holding a separate vote on the red cross
(etc) and IOC.
This is what many of us in At-Large have been vigorously advocating since the issue first arose, so far on deaf ears. The Red Cross, an international treaty organization recognized in wartime and during disasters, directly solicits public attention and funds for emergency relief efforts that happen unexpectedly. It often must create ad-hoc domains for co-ordination of such efforts, domains which are primary targets for potential fraud and cybersquatting which present real cost and threat to potential sources of assistance. The IOC is an international body that co-ordinates athletic events that are well known years (maybe decades) in advance. A fairly small proportion of its revenue comes from short-term emergency appeals to the public. The domains of the IOC, and its associated national affiliates, are fairly well known and stable. Its request for name protection stems less from efforts to protect potential contributors than to maximize licensing revenue directly associated with the word "olympic". There is no operation in the world legitimately going under the names "red cross", "red crescent", etc which does anything else than humanitarian relief. There are golf clubs <http://www.golfbc.com/courses/olympic_view>, family restaurants<http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g54359-d436186-Reviews-Olympic_...>, musical groups <http://www.theolympicsymphonium.com/>, football teams<http://www.olympiacos.org/en> and other organizations around the world using the name "olympic" (or variations) without any direct association to IOC-related athletic events. (The name "olympic.com" resolves to a paint company!) In some cases these legitimate and non-infringing uses come under intense (and against the public interest) legal pressure, especially in countries about to host IOC-sanctioned events. For the red cross, protecting the name in Internet domain space is about giving end users confidence that their efforts and donations are going to the intended destination. There is no such public trust issue at hand for the IOC. Others have done far more detailed analyses<http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/icann-and-red-cross-exceptional-exception>of the differences. All of this has been shamefully ignored by the Board. I am not saying that the IOC is totally undeserving of attention, but that the unfortunate forced pairing of these two very disparate cases has rendered ICANN incapable of sane policy making. The two must be considered independently. It's unclear what ALAC can say or do about the beyond the message it has consistently delivered from the beginning. Lumping the two together has led to policy chaos. Thich has kept ICANN from creating a necessary broader strategy for dealing with IGOs, NGOs, and non-ICRC charities such as Oxfarm and MSF which also (will eventually) demand consideration. - Evan