[gnso-igo-ingo] IOC Comments for IGO INGO PDP Working Group
Dear all, Please find, attached and below, the IOC comments for the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Apologies for duplication to the Qualification Criteria group. RE: Nature of the Problem In addition to our statements included in the spreadsheet, we have a few concerns that we would like to address before or during the call tomorrow. 1. The row headings (questions) themselves (e.g.: Cost of defensive registrations; costs of stopping infringing domain registrations) are no longer presented in an unbiased fashion. We feel that encouraging participants to look at an inquiry in a certain way may encourage a predetermined conclusion (e.g.: "In reviewing costs, one must first determine to what degree costs and legitimate and to what extent they are based on FUD and featherbedding by groups who want to preserve their livelihood. The fact that a lot of money is currently being spent in a [sic] infringement protection industry does not mean that these expenses are warranted [sic]."). We would respectfully advocate for a simple question, with arguments and suggestions made in the body of the spreadsheet. a. In addition, we are unclear what you mean by "FUD." 2. We object to the focus on United States law in the row headed "Domain names can be registered by unauthorized parties under circumstances where authorization is required by law. Bearing in mind that due process of law to protect legal rights is available." The IOC has provided a list of national statues that protect the words Olympic and Olympiad, and we respectfully encourage a more global viewpoint. Insofar as the United States is used as an example, we object to the use of the INTA Fact Sheet as an authoritative and accurate source. We have addressed the various inaccuracies in the spreadsheet itself. 3. We object to the row headed "A public good is infringed upon." Although the IOC can easily demonstrate that it uses over 90% of its revenue to further the public good through its mission of Olympism and that this is harmed by the diversion of resources to protect the Olympic names in the domain name space, the "public good" criteria is ambiguous and subjective, and we believe that the primary focus of the group should be on the various laws that protect the use of the Olympic words. In addition, we are disappointed that the group included the erroneous statement that "Primarily a commercial interest is at stake for the IOC. Any public good is secondary to the billion dollar commercial licensing businesses that is the main impact of IOC." While opinions are encouraged in this group, misstatements of fact should be eliminated. The IOC is a legal recognized not-for-profit organization which diverts over 90% of its revenue to furthering the goals of Olympism. The six aims of Olympism are: Peace through Sport, Education through Sport, Development through Sport, Environmental Protection and Sport, Women and Sport and Personal Development through Sport. Further, the Olympic Solidarity project supports developing nations that wish to participate in the Olympic movement. The IOC has been honored and recognized for its activities directed toward public good by organizations around the world and has worked with numerous organizations including UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO, UNOSDP, UNEP, the International AIDS Society, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, and many more. More information can be found about these efforts at www.olympic.org<http://www.olympic.org>. RE: Qualification Criteria The IOC is unsure about the relevance of some of the added criteria, and note that some questions are unnecessarily repetitive. However, we have answered the questions as requested and look forward to a productive discussion in tomorrow's call. RE: Eligibility Criteria The IOC does not have any specific revisions to the content of the Eligibility Criteria Spreadsheet. The only comment we have is that we do not believe that .int is an appropriate criterion to apply across the board, as the IOC and other INGOs do not qualify for a .int. RE: Admission to Protections The IOC does not have any specific revisions to this spreadsheet. However, the IOC believes that once an organization satisfies the qualification criteria, that they should be admitted upon application without having to jump through any additional hoops. RE: Protections The IOC does not have any specific revisions to your work, however we do have two comments. First, the IOC is concerned about the contemplation that existing RPMs will be adequate to address the amount of cybersquatting and fraudulent activity in relation to the Olympic words. We believe that the RPMs are easily outstripped by the magnitude of the problem faced by the IOC and others. Second, the IOC would like to register it's preference for the "Modified Reserved Names List with exemption procedure" option. We do not believe that such an option would necessarily require a "complex new procedure" as you note. The last IOC/RCRC Drafting Team contemplated and considered how existing mechanisms could address legitimate use issues. The DT discussed using the UDRP or URS, or internal mechanisms like Registry Ombudsman or Registry Arbitration. We look forward to discussing these points on tomorrow's call. Best regards, Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran J. Malancharuvil Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. Georgetown Place 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 944-3307 - office (619) 972-7810 - mobile kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx> This message from the law firm of Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP may contain confidential or privileged information. If you received this transmission in error, please call us immediately at (202) 944-3307 or contact us by e-mail at kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>. Disclosure or use of any part of this message by persons other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Attachment:
IGO-INGO-Working-Tool_v1 5 1 WITH IOC Changes 1_15_2013.xlsx |