The ICC has Upheld the Community Objection of SportAccord against the application of Famous Four for the new gTLD .Sport
SportAccord is also an applicant for the new gTLD .Sport, actually the only other applicant for .Sport so what this ruling means if it stands, is that Famous Four’s application for .Sport will be rejected and SportAccord will wind up with the new gTLD .Sport.
The ICC panel found that SportAccord represented the community of Sports
There is also a new gTLD application .Sports filed by Donuts.
Here are the relevant findings by the one member panel:
SportAccord is a not-for-profit association established since 1967 and has:
(i) 91 full members: international sports federations governing specific sports worldwide, and
(ii) 16 associate members: organizations which conduct activities closely related to the international sports federations.
In Objector’s words, “SportAccord is the umbrella organization for both Olympic and non-Olympic international sports federations as well as organisers of international sporting events”.
To qualify for standing for a “Community Objection”, the Objector shall fulfill two conditions, namely that (i) it is an established institution, and (ii) it has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community.
SportAccord (previously known as “GAISF”, the General Association of International Sports Federations) is a not-for-profit association established in 1967.
The length of time that SportAccord has been in existence –almost half a century– is sufficient, in the Appointed Expert’s view, to consider Objector as a long- established institution and clearly evidences that such association was not creat- ed with the sole intention to participate in the gTLD application process.
Additionally, the Appointed Expert notes that Objector also meets the stand- ard of “global recognition”, as mentioned in the ICANN Guidebook, since it has a very large membership, comprising of 91 international sports federations and 16 organizations related to sports. In the Appointed Expert’s opinion, this is also in- dicative of Objector’s public historical evidence of its existence.
Even though Applicant has relied on a survey according to which Objector is hardly known to the majority of the public surveyed,20 it is the Appointed Expert’s view that the level of global recognition of any institution should be analysed with-in the context of the community that such institution is claiming to be a part of, not the public in general.
Based on these reasons, the Appointed Expert concludes that Objector is an “established institution” in the terms of Article 3.2.2.4 of the ICANN Guidebook.…
