[At-Large] Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Feb 2 22:05:46 UTC 2012
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
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 -
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.
>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
>(And happy birthday, BTW!)
>On 2 February 2012 10:37, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <
>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
More information about the At-Large