[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Oct 22 20:15:31 UTC 2012

For the record, the GAC did not use the term "international law", it 
was "international legal instrucments" which if I remember correctly, 
are agreements between countries. Presumably any action against use 
of the terms would be at a national level (or UDRP for registered 
names if also registered as trrademarks).


At 22/10/2012 02:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>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.
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 

More information about the ALAC mailing list