[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto
avri at acm.org
Mon Oct 22 18:32:38 UTC 2012
Re; RCRC Movement
If it is International Law, than why has this never been acted on in any International court. There must certainly be second level infringements in the incumbent gTLDs of the constraints the RCRC wishes put in place (I haven't checked, I am just assuming) that could have been judged in International tribunals. Certainly infringement of the RCRC movement symbols on a battlefield would have been challenged in the blink of an eye. Also, while the GAC can give valuable advice, it is not an arbtrar of International Law. Nor does it make law.
I certainly think that the PDP should look into this seriously and I think the pointer to .int policy is a very useful clue. But I also agree with those who say this is an ICANN policy matter. In the absence in rulings by duly constituted tribunals at the correct International level, it is for the muti-stakeholder ICANN process to develop and apply policy that meets the existing International requirements to the best of our understanding.
I look forward to the PDP WG. I have, incidentally, reached out to one of my teachers, a veteran of the IFRC, from the Diplo Humanitarian Diplomacy course (where I learned an immense amount about the IFRC & RCRC movement), to join the WG when it forms. He will certainly raise the level of discussion.
On 20 Oct 2012, at 21:36, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
More information about the ALAC