<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations
- To: "soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:45:50 -0700
Dear All,
Please find below the draft recommendations that came out of today’s CWG Rec 6
WG meeting. For those on the call, please let me know if I’ve missed or
misstated anything. For those of you that were not on the call, if you do not
agree with one or more of these draft recommendations, please share your
objection and reason for objection with the mailing list.
USE OF MORALITY & PUBLIC ORDER TERMS
Draft Recommendation: Remove the references to Morality & Public Order in the
Draft Applicant Guidebook as far as these are being used as an international
standard and replace them with the term ‘Public Order Objections’. Further
details about what is meant with ‘Public Order Objection’ would need to be
worked out to ensure that it does not create any confusion or contravene other
existing principles such as principle G.
INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Draft Recommendation: Give serious consideration to other treaties to be added
as examples (see list circulated by Marilyn Cade) in the Draft Applicant
Guidebook, noting that these should serve as examples and not be interpreted as
an exhaustive list.
Draft Recommendation: Clarify that in the current Draft Applicant Guidebook,
Individual governments are able to file an objection based on a national
concern. At the end of the day, national governments will block what they don't
like, but they have to be heard and make their case and the potential impact it
might have.
Draft Recommendation: Clarify terminology by using Principles of International
Law instead of International Principles of law to make it consistent with what
GNSO intended (possible implications to be further discussed in meeting
tomorrow with Jones Day lawyer)
HIGH BOARD TRESHOLD FOR APPROVING / REJECTING
Draft Recommendation [For further discussion on tomorrow’s meeting]: To reject
a string for which a recommendation 6 objection has been filed, there should be
a higher threshold of the board to approve a string / there should be a higher
threshold to reject a string / a sub-set might require a higher threshold to
approve.
If you cannot participate in tomorrow’s meeting in which Carroll Dorgan from
Jones Day will participate, please share any questions you would like to ask
him with the mailing list so these can be put forward if time allows.
With best regards,
Marika
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|