[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The distinction between International law and International legal instruments is interesting because these are just one component of International Law.  Thanks for the clarification.  I think, however, that we need to be cognizant of International Law, not just the legal instruments.  I also think that the RCRC movements arguments go beyond the international legal instruments.

On the difference between the issues, ie. ICRC, IFRC, RCRC movement (the national organizations).  As far as I understand:

RedCoss.tld  is an IFRC issue
AmericanRedCross.tld or SvenskaRödKorset.tld or מגןדודאדום.tld are national movement issues - are these included in the moratorium?

Have there been any national movement lawsuits or governmental actions?  I believe there have been UDRP actions, but that makes them more like everybody else.  I think this is data we need to collect as part of the policy process.

avri



On 22 Oct 2012, at 16:15, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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).
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 22/10/2012 02:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 
>