Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC comments

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan, all,
thanks for your contributions and good points. 

As we are discussing the RySG's proposal - do you have any suggestions as to 
changes to the language that would need to be made so that you can support the 
proposal, in case you cannot support it on an "as is" basis? 

Thanks,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 26.04.2013 um 21:36 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>:

> On 25 April 2013 21:28, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I would take issue with the blanket statement that “acronyms are broadly 
>> applicable.”  Applied to UNICEF, the statement doesn’t stand up.  Many other 
>> acronyms are distinctive and identified with particular organizations.  
>> WIPO, for instance.  Even WTO (the World Tourism Organization uses UNWTO as 
>> its acronym to distinguish itself from the World Trade Organization).  In 
>> the IGO space at least, this is probably false more often than it is true.
>> 
> 
> And yet there are notable standouts, such as "WHO", which stands as a fairly 
> obvious counterpoint. Similarly, "ILO" is a province in Peru, as well as the 
> International Linguistics Olympiad (which I guess makes that event a double 
> offender in this group)
> 
> One need go no further than the many Wikipedia "disambiguation" pages to 
> demonstrate that a broad range of acronyms -- and almost all of four letters 
> or fewer -- have multiple uses.
> 
> So you may take issue with the assertion, but evidence exists to back it up.
> 
> - Evan