I think some special privileges are not that unreasonable to ask for - both are special cases protected by widely supported treaties and/or special legislation.
The issue is what form those privileges take, and what justification there is for them.
Personally, I find the privileges for Red Cross (et al) to be not that unreasonable. My only caveat would be genuine free speech uses should still be protected IMO.
Much less happy with the Olympics, and I think we should not let it go in the current form. Quoting the Nairobi treaty in support is dishonest (the treaty protects the Olympic five rings symbol, not the word Olympics), and the word Olympic is not 'those terms most directly associated with the International Olympic Committee'. I haven't checked most of the legislation quoted in support, but most of it seems to be legislation enacted relating to the Nairobi Treaty/Olympic symbol, not the word 'Olympic' (certainly, the Australian act they quote does not mention the word Olympic, and protects trade marks only incorporating the Olympic symbol or motto).
The IOC know perfectly well that they do not have that level of control over the use of the word Olympic in any context, they just want it and think they can slip it by the GAC. There are numerous businesses that have Olympic as part of a trademark, and I count 5 on the first page of google results+ads, selling air travel, paint, cameras, travel, etc.
(and queue KK rant about how Olympic belongs to the Greeks etc)
So, I think we do not treat the two equally.
Red Cross et al, seems reasonable, and is well backed up by treaty etc. I think the reserved words asked for as specific and OK, and while there are plenty of policy details to be worked out, in principle no problem.
Olympics? Dishonest ambit claim poorly supported by facts and treaty. I say no way for 'Oympic' as a reserved word.
Cheers
David
On 05/10/2011, at 1:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Caroline Figuères wrote:
>
>> Dear Robin
>> Are you questionning the content of the special privileges or the special privileges as such, just for these organisations?
>>
>
> Hi Caroline,
>
> Thanks for your clarifying question. I think we are considering the appropriateness of both matters: whether there should be these special privileges at all?; and if so, should such privileges be given to just for these two organizations?
>
> I'm keen to hear others' thoughts as well.
>
> Thanks again,
> Robin
>
>> I leave the content part to the specialists. For the privileges I suppose there should be a very good rationale to do so. I am not aware of it.
>>
>> In general I am not in favor of privileges for large organisations except if this is part of a strategic move, helping openning the door for smaller ones that can asked for the same afterwards.... I do not know if this is the case.
>> Best
>> Caroline Figueres
>> IICD
>>
>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>>
>> Op 5 okt. 2011 om 01:25 heeft Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> I would be curious to know what the NCSG membership thinks about this proposal from GAC to give special privileges to the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee in the top-level domain name space.
>>>
>>> The GNSO Council will have to vote on this proposal soon, so some awareness and input from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group on the underlying issue would be very helpful.
>>>
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin Gross
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: September 19, 2011 11:07:42 AM PDT
>>>> To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: [liaison6c] GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
>>>>
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>>
>>>> The advice provided by the GAC has been posted on page :
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence
>>>>
>>>> And can be directly viewed at
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.pdf
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Item 11 on the GNSO Council agenda has been updated to read as follows:
>>>> Item 11: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes)
>>>> As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b):
>>>> Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs:
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm
>>>> Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.
>>>> The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance:
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf
>>>> On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing advice on this topic:
>>>> GAC advice:
>>>> 1) possible UDRP
>>>> 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
>>>> The Council should now discuss next steps and possible courses of action, starting with an answer to the GAC.
>>>> 11.1 Discussion
>>>> 11.2 Next steps
>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glen de Saint Géry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
|
