International Olympic Committee: Difference between revisions
+Template:Major articles parallel with Wikipedia |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:Major articles parallel with Wikipedia}} | |||
{{CompanyInfo| | {{CompanyInfo| | ||
| logo = logo_olympicscommittee.png | | logo = logo_olympicscommittee.png | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
==International Olympic Committee & ICANN== | ==International Olympic Committee & ICANN== | ||
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> | 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]] while preventing other entities from applying for confusingly similar strings, 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 prevented 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> | |||
Protections at the top-level for the IOC and Red Cross were approved by the [[ICANN Board]] in November, 2012. The Board also approved a more temporary measure approving terms associated with the organizations at the [[SLD|second-level]] across new gTLDs. It was announced that more firm plans to protect IGOs at the second level across all New gTLDs are anticipated.<ref>[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=bb1b314d-eac1-4518-9d67-a2ff3c16421b WordTrademarkReview.com]Published 29 Nov 2012, Retrieved 6 Dec 2012</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:16, 26 August 2024
 | |
| Type: | Non-Profit |
| Founded: | 1894 |
| Headquarters: | Château de Vidy Case postale 356 1001 Lausanne |
| Country: | Switzerland |
| Website: | olympic.org |
The International Olympic Committee is the authority of the Olympic Movement, forging collaborations between different organizations within the Olympics, including the National Olympic Committees (NOCs), the International Sports Federations (IFs), the athletes, the Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs), and others, such as broadcast partners and United Nations agencies. The goal of the Olympic Movement is to aid in building a more peaceful and beter world through the education of sport, free of discrimination and full of friendship and fairness.[1]
International Olympic Committee & ICANN[edit | edit source]
At ICANN 43 in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council was slated to vote on a broadly-supported resolution that gave special trademark protections to the International Olympic Committee, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent. Its approval would have allowed for these organizations to apply for new gTLDs such as .olympic and .redcross while preventing other entities from applying for confusingly similar strings, 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[2] 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.[3]
The delay caused a scenario wherein the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross may have been prevented from applying for new gTLDs until the second application round, possibly years later[2], 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.[3]
Protections at the top-level for the IOC and Red Cross were approved by the ICANN Board in November, 2012. The Board also approved a more temporary measure approving terms associated with the organizations at the second-level across new gTLDs. It was announced that more firm plans to protect IGOs at the second level across all New gTLDs are anticipated.[4]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ About IOC, IOC.org. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Olympic showdown spells doom for ICANN, film at 11, DomainIncite.com. Published 2012 March 19. Retrieved 2012 November 20.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 [1], DomainIncite.com. Published 2012 March 26. Retrieved 2012 November 20.
- ↑ WordTrademarkReview.comPublished 29 Nov 2012, Retrieved 6 Dec 2012