Thanks for the input thus far. Two things I would like to clarify: as you know, I am principally against any kind of special protection about either of these names, but this does not appear to be an option for the group that has been created - the idea is to appease the GAC and that's why - whether we like it or not - some sort of recommendations will come out of this process. The option number 6 under question 1 on Jeff's email is my contribution for those rightful owners that exist (especially in Greece) and have legitimate claims to the term Olympic or its variations, be it due to trademark rights or other geographical/cultural indicators. I am thrilled with the idea them having to go through an appeals process (it creates bureaucracy) but this appears to be the best we can do at this point.

On the point that we shouldn't treat the IOC and the Red Cross as one batch, I also raised this but the majority in the group seems to think that there is not such issue, despite the fact that we have repeatedly said that there is. I will raise it again as I think this issue becomes more obvious at the second level. In the comments I sent to Jeff, I will express the views of this group, but it would be good if we could have also some answers to the questions.

My sense for the questions is the following:

Question 1: I could live with option 6a and 6b - I don't trust the IOC to provide letters allowing this to happen and I don't trust the governments to do the same. There needs to be an appeal's process.
 
Question 2: I go for option 1. Don't give them more than we have to - we are already giving them plenty.
 
Question 3: I would go for option 2 and that's it..

Again, I repeat, this is me compromising, since I know that, even if we stick to our guns for no protections, then they will go ahead and produce recommendations. It is better to be part of their formation, than not.

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Παρασκευή, 3 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 8:13 πμ
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

On 03/02/2012, at 2:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> FWIW, there is now a discussion going on in At-Large on the issue, started when I forwarded Konstantinos' original mail.
> 
> There are a few sentiments being expressed there that might find common ground here:
> 

	Glad to hear it. 

> 1) Many respondents believe that there is no cause for *any* exception, that the existing defined objection processes should be sufficient for any application harming the public interest to be stopped.

	Yes, The IFRC and IOC do not simply need to demonstrate that they are entitled to special rights over the words requested (which i don't believe the IOC have done), but they should also demonstrate why existing objection processes are not sufficient to protect those rights. Quite possibly being able to use those protection measures via direct appeal to treaty/legislation rather than via trademark law may be sufficient to provide the protection they are entitled to. 
	
> 
> 2) If there is a realization that some exception process *must* happen to appease the GAC, there is significantly more sympathy for the IFRC to get an exception (because of the potential of squatters to go after Red Cross charitable donations) than for the IOC which has (to some), along with its national affiliates, been excessively aggressive in attacking the many non-conflicting overlaps of the string "olympic" (family restaurants, Greek airlines, etc). In fact, I have yet to hear from anyone in the At-Large discussion who supports any blanket exception for the IOC.
	
	Good to hear it. The two cases must be considered separately, and on individual merits, IMO. And I think the IOC argument as put forward so far is not strong, both in regards to the extent to which it appears to overstep the mark in ignoring existing trademarks, and to the extent it relies on a misleading and irrelevant mention of the Treaty of Nairobi (which protects the 5 rings symbol, not the word olympic). 
	Regards

		David