[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

[nhklein]

Thanks, KK, for your useful research.

While this clarifies some aspects of the USOC, I think at the end we 
will have to find more ways than using such legal terms to clarify the 
concerns under discussion.

There surely are no broadly accepted definitions of "non-commercial" and 
"not for profit" which we can use as an international community. Of 
course there are - different!!! - legal clarifications in different 
countries. We cannot just go by US legal statements - ICANN is working 
in different legal contexts.

As some contributors to the discussion said: We need an common sense 
understanding that is widely useful - also in Cambodia I want to add (as 
an example for many others).

Years ago, the NCUC discussion list was almost derailed for some time 
because a small, non-commercial and not-for-profit local sports club was 
a member, and dominated the discussion for some time with formalities: 
Yes, their club was was not-for-profit, they had a website - but they 
were not in agreement that the majority of the NCUC membership at that 
time was interested to discuss ICANN "politics" and we had general Civil 
Society concerns: like the effort to keep ICANN staying within the 
security and stability mandate, and not to be dominated by commercial 
interests, and we were concerned with freedom of expression - at that 
time a problem maybe in Cambodia, but not yet in countries like the USA 
where at present there is an intensive effort going on NOT to pass the 
SOPA legislation, etc.

To focus mainly on clear-cut legal statements - thanks to KK for lifting 
these up - will not solve fundamental problems related to what we should 
be and do together.


Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh

=

On 11/16/2011 05:39 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>
> On the issue of the USOC, I would like to reiterate that the USOC may 
> be non-profit but it is certainly non-commercial. Here is a quote from 
> a US case: ‘On review of the statute and the history of its enactment, 
> it is apparent that *the primary purpose of these provisions is to 
> secure to the USOC the commercial and promotional rights* to all 
> then-unencumbered uses of "Olympic" and other specified words, marks, 
> and symbols, seeUnited States Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corp., 
> S.A., 737 F.2d 263, 266, 222 USPQ 766, 768 (2d Cir.),cert.denied, 469 
> U.S. 982 (1984), but subject to the commercial rights that existed at 
> the time of enactment’ (the statute referring to the protection of the 
> Olympic mark). This case, clearly indicates that the USOC has 
> commercial rights on the term Olympic and, thus, have commercial 
> interests deriving from the name.
>
> And here is another interesting article I came across, which in my 
> eyes at least makes USOC purely a commercial enterprise: 
> http://www.21mktg.com/docs/USOC_Sign_Citi-SportsBusiness_Journal.pdf
>
> KK
>
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>
> Senior Lecturer,
>
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
>
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
>
> University of Strathclyde,
>
> The Law School,
>
> Graham Hills building,
>
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
>
> UK
>
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
>
> Selected publications: 
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>
> Website: www.komaitis.org <http://www.komaitis.org>
>
>

-- 
A while ago, I started a new blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111116/ffb01fcf/attachment-0001.html>