<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Comment of British, Australian and Canadian Red Cross Societies: Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
- To: <ioc-rcrc-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Comment of British, Australian and Canadian Red Cross Societies: Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
- From: "Michael Meyer" <MMeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:20:16 +0100
We wish to offer the following comments in relation to the proposed
recommendations for the protection of the Red Cross/ Red Crescent and IOC
names. Although we work for Red Cross entities, our intention is not to plead a
special case for our organisations. Rather, we felt it may be useful to
explain, simply in the hope that it will aid understanding, why the protection
of the names "Red Cross", "Red Crescent" and those related to them is a unique
matter warranting distinct attention.
We note the desire expressed by several members to avoid granting protection to
individual organisations, and we certainly understand the impetus to create a
level playing field. However, we would emphasise that the central reason for
seeking protection of "Red Cross", "Red Crescent" and related names lies in
their special status under international humanitarian law (namely, the 1949
Geneva Conventions). These names are not only, or even primarily, the titles of
individual Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations. Rather, they relate to the
distinctive emblems adopted by Governments and displayed during times of armed
conflict to indicate the neutrality of, and protection owed to, the individual,
vehicle or building upon which they appear. In particular, the emblems of the
red cross and red crescent are used by the Medical Service of the armed forces
(as well as by Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations).
To preserve this special meaning and purpose, use of the red cross, red
crescent and related emblems (as well as their names) is restricted, not only
by international law (as described above), but also by national legislation in
most countries. This may help to explain why Governments (who are ultimately
responsible for regulation of the emblems and their names) have supported their
protection in the context of the gTLD process, through the GAC. Similar efforts
undertaken by Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations to seek protection for
these names is based on our collective responsibility to uphold their special
meaning and status.
In short, this is not a name, brand or trademark protection exercise for Red
Cross/ Red Crescent organisations. While these organisations are privileged to
use the distinctive emblems and their associated names (in many instances only
with the delegated authority of the State), such emblems/names have a distinct
humanitarian function (in particular in times of armed conflict), confirmed by
binding treaty law that is universally endorsed. Protecting these names within
the gTLD process (and related processes) would therefore rightly reflect the
long-established legal restrictions on their use, and by effect, help to uphold
their humanitarian purpose.
Finally, regarding the decision-making process, our understanding was that the
necessary decisions within ICANN had already been taken to adopt the principle
of protection as a matter of policy, and that remaining consultations were to
be focused on technical implementation of the policy. However, we also
appreciate that a PDP has been recommended by the drafting team (albeit without
consensus). In our view, if a PDP is pursued, a temporary moratorium on use of
the names is vital to ensure their protected status is upheld in the interim.
Thank you all in advance for your consideration: we hope the above comments are
clear and helpful. Again, we would emphasise that our intention is not to seek
to differentiate Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations from other non-profit
and/or humanitarian organisations. Rather, it is simply to ensure that the
special humanitarian purpose and unique status of these names, as well as the
existing international and national legal protections on their use, are well
understood and upheld.
Michael Meyer
Head of International Law
British Red Cross
Helen Durham
Head, International Law and Principles
Australian Red Cross
Ilario Maiolo
Senior Legal Advisor
Canadian Red Cross
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|