[At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 12 17:28:16 UTC 2012
Indeed the problem is not new.
However, the letter is from earlier this year.
FYI, I have contacted the legal office of my organization, one of the signatories of the letter, offering to discuss the issue, although with no hope to be able of having any influence.
> From: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
> To: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:41:03 +0100
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross
> Good evening. This issue has been on the table for several years.
> 1. This letter dates, I think, from 2004:
> I recall that this is not the only occasion on which the problem has
> been drawn to ICANN's attention.
> 2. However, I see no reason to privilege IOC and RC as against the
> IGOs many of which have equally good arguments for protection.
> 3. If it is in the "public interest" for trademark owners to be able
> to protect the exclusivity of their names, then it is equally - if not
> more so - in the public interest for the IGOs to be identifiable, with
> at little confusion as possible.
> 4. I have no idea how this issue has meanwhile escaped the attention
> of the GNSO and the multistakeholder process of which ALAC is a party.
> On 04 Mar 2012, at 19:50, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, Avri.
> > I've tried to incorporate your comments into the statement.
> > - Evan
> > On 4 March 2012 13:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >> On 4 Mar 2012, at 11:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>> The draft of this statement is located at
> >> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+Red+Cross+and+IOC
> >> I support the statement, but have some difficulty with the wording
> >> of the
> >> last paragraph.
> >>> In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the
> >> ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and
> >> Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public
> >> interest, and
> >> to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the
> >> body
> >> mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users
> >> around
> >> the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of
> >> ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-
> >> user
> >> benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and
> >> instability.
> >> If I understand the statement correctly, my difficulty concerns two
> >> implications that on their surface appear contractory:
> >> - A Board reconsideration, if successful, could result in changing
> >> the AGB
> >> because they would have to drop the prohibition against anyone,
> >> including
> >> the IOC or RC, from applying for one of the listed IOC/RC names.
> >> - yet because it would be wrong to change an ongoing process at
> >> this late
> >> date, ALAC is asking that the AGB remain as it is
> >> While I support this combined goal I think that it needs to be
> >> explained
> >> better.
> >> So, assuming I understand the recommendation being proposed in the
> >> draft,
> >> I offer some possible changes to this paragraph for consideration.
> >> In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests
> >> the ICANN
> >> Board to reconsider its actions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic
> >> names
> >> as being ultimately against the global public interest. ALAC
> >> advises that
> >> actions of the Board in this regard be reviewed with the purpose of
> >> giving
> >> the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interests involved in
> >> making
> >> such changes to implementations that were based on approved
> >> multistakeholder consensus policy. ALAC further advises the ICANN
> >> Board to
> >> leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard. Although
> >> it would
> >> have been better had the ICANN Board not decided as it did, changes
> >> to an
> >> ongoing process at the end of that process would be inherently
> >> unfair and
> >> detrimental. As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the
> >> interests of
> >> Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative
> >> damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without
> >> providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential
> >> sources of public confusion and instability.
> >> thanks
> >> avri
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 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