[gnso-iocrc-dt] TR: Session on IOC/RC

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Nicola,

Thank you very much for your email. I have transmitted this to the working 
group's mailing list and their chair, Jeff Neuman.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org

De : Nicola.BONUCCI@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI@xxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI@xxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : samedi 10 mars 2012 19:06
À : Glen de Saint Géry
Cc : 
Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@xxxxxxxx>; 
Jill.SCHUKER@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Jill.SCHUKER@xxxxxxxx>; 
Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx>
Objet : Session on IOC/RC
Importance : Haute

Dear Glen,

I just heard part of the session on IOC/RC that you were chairing.  Let me 
first congratulate the GNSO Working Group for its transparency in putting this 
session live.....I have to say however that ,as an international lawyer working 
in public international law for 25 years, I heard several statements that would 
 cause any public international lawyer to jump on his/her seat  such as "The 
IGO's do not meet the same "criteria" than IOC/RC based on international law" 
(sic...)

Such statements do not stand scrutiny.

First, it should be noted that in public international law only states and 
intergovernmental international organizations are considered subjects of 
international law.  This is clearly recognized by the 1986 Vienna Convention on 
the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations and between 
International organizations (see   
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_2_1986.pdf) 
which indicates that only "intergovernmental organizations" can conclude 
treaties.  With all due respect for the two institutions in question they do 
not meet the 1986 Convention criteria .

Second, if you look at the treaty protection offered by public international 
law to the names and acronyms of IGO's it is difficult to argue that it is not 
at least comparable if not stronger than the one offered to the two 
institutions in question.

I understand that GNSO and ICANN in general is concerned with precedent but I 
cannot but restate what the IGO already wrote in December 2011.  We continue to 
stand ready to find a solution within the ICANN framework which we fully 
respect  but we are not ready to give up what we consider to be a legitimate 
and reasonable request .

While I am not in Costa Rica I am ready to join any discussion via internet or 
on the phone (you had suggested a further GNSO working group discussion 
tomorrow at 12h00) and as you may know the OECD is represented in San José by 
Sam Paltridge whom you can get in touch with too.

Best regards




[cid:image002.png@01CCFEF0.E160B7C0]

Nicola Bonucci
Director & Accession Coordinator / Directeur et coordonnateur de l'adhésion
Directorate for Legal Affairs / Direction des affaires juridiques



2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel: +33 1 45 24 80 77 - Fax: +33 1 44 30 62 45
nicola.bonucci@xxxxxxxx<mailto:lisa.vonn@xxxxxxxx>  || 
www.oecd.org<http://www.oecd.org/>

Follow us on:
[cid:image004.png@01CCFEF0.E160B7C0]<http://www.facebook.com/theOECD> 
[cid:image006.png@01CCFEF0.E160B7C0] <http://www.youtube.com/oecd>   
[cid:image008.png@01CCFEF0.E160B7C0] <http://www.flickr.com/photos/oecd>   
[cid:image010.png@01CCFEF0.E160B7C0] <http://twitter.com/OECDtweet>

Attachment: Open Letter from IGO Legal Counsels.pdf
Description: Open Letter from IGO Legal Counsels.pdf