[At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war?
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Nov 2 10:51:10 UTC 2016
I know this is a fun thread, but perhaps we should make sure that all
participants know what we are talking about. It is not any
prohibition on registering IGO acronyms. That was rejected long ago.
It is a proposal (among others) to put some acronyms in the Trademark
clearing house so that if someone tries to register one of the
"protected" acronyms, the IGO is notified and can try to ensure that
the string is not used to mis-represent them.
The concern is that even though (in my opinion) the proposal is
reasonable, there is no way to easy way to implement it given the
current GNSO-Board procedures.
Thomas did not threaten to have the GAC leave. He said that if
governments are dissatisfied with ICANN, they may look for other
options. That is a fact - WTSA Resolution 47 demonstrates it.
>Lest we get distracted by process as ICANN does so often and so
>well, let's also remember the substance of the issue. Multiple
>people on this thread have complained "why should we afford
>protection to the XXX if we don't give it to someone else
>deserving?" or "why should ICANN give protection to XXX that it
>doesn't get elsewhere?"
More information about the At-Large