ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Rationale for Board Committee Resolution Posted

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Rationale for Board Committee Resolution Posted
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:46:21 +0000

Thanks Avri.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:23 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Rationale for Board Committee
> Resolution Posted
> On 28 Apr 2012, at 15:52, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > Please clarify what you mean when you say that the group " tried to
> create further special 'protections', e.g. the right of
> implicit/explicit licensing".
> Any arrangement that allows for the IOC or IFRC to allow an applicant
> register a name that is similar to a name reserved on its behalf, set
> up the opportunity for either an explicit licensing arrangement (i.e.
> applicant pays directly for the permission from one of the two
> protected entities) or an implicit licensing arrangement (i.e where a
> coincidental contribution results in the granting of the permission) to
> register the similar name.
> The recommendation from this committee contained such a provision.  I
> am not stating that there was any intent for this to happen, but the
> recommendation from this DT did create that opportunity.  Now while
> this licensing arrangement is already the policy for governments, the
> IOC and IFRC would have been the first non-governments to have been
> provided such a licensing (explict or implicit) right.
> avri

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy