[gnso-igo-ingo] IOC Positions - PDP Working Group

[Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Thomas and All:



In response to the inquiries from the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group teleconference 
on Wednesday, please find the IOC's responses :



The questions surrounding protection for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent 
have already been raised, researched, and answered in the affirmative.  The 
issue does not require additional lengthy analysis in this PDP.  Indeed, on 
Thursday, Thomas forwarded the helpful unredacted June 2011 Board working paper 
on this question, which neatly answers many of the questions that some members 
of this group would like to revisit.  (For convenience, the paper can be found 
here:  
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.pdf)
  This working paper, prepared with the help of ICANN inside and outside 
counsel, found that the IOC/RCRC met the criteria for special protection, 
unlike other entities.



Additionally, as some members of this  Group have rightfully stated, the IOC 
has submitted a number of documents, beginning as early as 2008, outlining and 
explaining the scope of the problem that the new gTLD program presents to the 
IOC's mandate to carry out the mission of Olympism.  The IOC has also provided 
numerous national statutes demonstrating the unique legal position of the IOC, 
which justifies special protection for Olympic words beyond that which is 
provided for trademarks. For example, please find the IOC's letter to ICANN 
from February 2011 here:

http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/lacotte-stupp-to-pritz-stathos-01feb11-en.pdf



The GAC has also addressed the issue at length.  For your convenience, please 
find here a Question and Answers document which may help answer some of the 
questions posed by the PDP Working Group:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30343723/IOC+AND+IRC+RESERVATIONS+IN+NEW+GTLDS+QUESTIONS+AND-ANSWERS.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1320967688000
  In addition, the GAC letter to the GNSO of September 14, 2011 includes a list 
of relevant statutory protections which were all explored and vetted by the GAC 
and the Board in their deliberations:  
https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and+Red+Cross+Sep.+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1317031625914



The IOC has also submitted a number of documents demonstrating the scope of the 
problem faced by the IOC, because of its unique visibility, which gave rise to 
the sui generis protections that form the basis of protection.  These documents 
include watch reports of the hundreds of unauthorized Olympic domain name 
registrations that the IOC faces each week.  (The submissions can be found on 
the IOC/RCRC Mailing List Archive page, here:  
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/.)   The sheer volume of 
unauthorized Olympic domain name registrations, which would increase 
exponentially with over a thousand new Top Level Domains, would outstrip Rights 
Protection Mechanisms. Any attempt to protect the Olympic names through these 
RPMs would not only be overwhelmed, but would divert substantial funds from the 
International Olympic Committee's beneficent nonprofit mission.



We hope this information is helpful to you and the Group as a whole.  As it 
shows, the IOC/RCRC issue has been thoroughly considered, and should be severed 
or separated from from the more general PDP on IGO/INGOs because of the 
different basis of protection and because the ICANN Board, the ICANN new gTLD 
Committee, the GAC, and the prior IOC/RCRC Working Group regarded them as 
separate and distinct.



Best regards,



Jim


James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>