[At-Large] R: GNSO Council

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Sun Nov 18 18:04:30 UTC 2012

On 18 November 2012 12:07, Adam Peake <ajp at 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

There are golf clubs <http://www.golfbc.com/courses/olympic_view>, family
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
the differences. All of this has been shamefully ignored by the Board.
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

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

More information about the At-Large mailing list