International Olympic Committee: Difference between revisions

At [[ICANN 43]] in Costa Rica, the [[GNSO|GNSO Council]] was slated to vote on a broadly-supported resolution that gave special trademark protections to the International Olympic Committee, and the [[IFRC|International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent]]. Its approval would have allowed for these organizations to apply for new [[gTLD]]s such as [[.olympic]] and [[.redcross]], but its vote was delayed due to the nonapproval of the [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]] constituency group, which argued that special protections for the aforementioned organizations should not be allowed<ref name="icann43-1">[http://domainincite.com/8216-olympic-showdown-spells-doom-for-icann-film-at-11 Olympic showdown spells doom for ICANN, film at 11], DomainIncite.com. Published 2012 March 19.  Retrieved 2012 November 20.</ref> and that the policies go against [[ICANN]]'s tendency to be grow policies from community roots. They argued that the normal process was "circumvented" and that the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross went directly to national governments.<ref name="icann43-2">[http://domainincite.com/8283-the-olympics-and-the-death-of-the-gnso-part-deux ], DomainIncite.com. Published 2012 March 26. Retrieved 2012 November 20.</ref>

The delay caused a scenario wherein the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross may have been banned from applying for new gTLDs until the second application round, possibly years later<ref name="icann43-1"></ref>, but in March 2012, a new GNSO vote was scheduled due to the previous deferral.The resolution won by just one vote after six NCSG council members abstained, citing the same reasons as before. Even with the approval of the GNSO Council, the policy can only become law if approved by the ICANN Board and implemented by the staff via the Applicant Guidebook.<ref name="icann43-2"></ref>