Some additional information that may be of interest; attached is the formal ALAC statement opposing any further protections for the IOC/RC, adopted by the ALAC just yesterday.
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue
From: "Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]>
To: Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
CC:
As approved a few minutes ago.
ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN
THE GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN Board,
its staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain names related
to the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to the poor precedents
these activities set forward both on substance and on process:
On substance, we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red
Cross and the International Olympic Committee protections not available
to other rights holders. Substantial objection procedures were put in
place regarding the gTLD program, well capable of addressing all concerns
about confusion and misuse. ICANN�s Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC), which has raised the concerns about these names, indeed has its
own hard-won objection mechanisms in place.
Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe
specifically that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related
names is against the global public interest. We note that many legitimate
uses of the word �olympic� and its derivatives are used for airlines,
cameras, restaurants, paint, and numerous businesses around the world
with no connection to the Olympic athletic movement or the IOC. These
businesses are not currently seen to be confusing with the olympic
movement, and we believe that needless restriction on these names --
beyond what already exists -- is publicly harmful.
On process, it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a
hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden as a
result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept that the
GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was performing its role
according to its members� wishes. However, the ICANN Board�s imposition
of these wishes upon the community without prior consultation
demonstrates numerous flaws and poor precedents: