[At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross

Neuman, Jeff Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Sun Mar 4 19:26:17 UTC 2012


This is being posted in my personal capacity and not as the Chair of the Drafting Team.  I too am disappointed in the manner and process in which the original board resolution came into play.  I am more so disappointed in the way in which the Board resolution was implemented in the Guidebook at the top-level.  The fact is that there was no form of public comment on the staff implementation and that implementation left so many loopholes in the application process, that the protections which are currently there are virtually meaningless.  It made no sense to us to ban the word "Olympics", but allow "Olympiks" for example  In addition, it made no sense to us that unlike any of the other reserved names, these names would NOT go through a string similarity review. Where was that decision made?  Who made that decision?  Why was there no public comment period on that decision?

Without getting into what was or wasn't said, the statement you have drafted - at least on the substance - is more of an expression of opinion as to whether the Olympic and/or red cross names should be protected.  In fact, the statement explicitly states that such protections are "publicly harmful."  If you could please update your statement to include the legal, factual or other basis for that claim, that would greatly assist the drafting team in its deliberations.  The IOC, IRC and GAC have provided ample evidence of treaties and national law, each of which very strongly protect the Olympic and Red Cross marks.  In addition, except for the identical matches, the Drafting Team is actually providing a mechanism for others that have a legitimate use of a similar mark to be able to get that string at the top level (eg., .olympus, .olympicair, .olympicpaint, etc.). It is by no means a perfect solution, but the Governments have brought to us a proposal and we evaluated it.  You have cited to the Multi-stakeholder process in your statement, but the governments are also part of the multi-stakeholder model as well and due consideration and respect must be given to their consensus statements/proposals if we are to succeed in the private-public partnership. 

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Best regards,

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

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 1:34 PM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross

Hi Jeff,

I am not sure I can post to this list, but if I can, I just want to note
> for the record that this statement by Evan is completely contrary to 
> the position taken by the ALAC member on the Drafting Team.

Having spoken to Alan before writing this, I don't believe that to be the case.

 - Evan
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list