[soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government objections)

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marika,

The third "draft recommendation" listed below says :

*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.*


I am not sure the DAG 4 allows this already. Or have I missed something ?

The current DAG envisages only the four specific types of objection : string
confusion, legal rights, MaPO and community. The MaPO objection process is
the one we are talking about here (even if renamed). But in the current MaPO
wording, there is no possibility, as far as I understand, for a particular
government to voice an objection that is not linked to a general
objectionability (according to principles of international law), but related
to its own public interest concerns (ie :"sensitivities" to take the GAC
wording).

If the group considers, as Konstatinos rightly put it, that : governments "have
to be heard and make their case and the potential impact it might have", we
may need to clarify the conditions for such an objection by one or a few
governments.

So I suppose that what we actually mean is the following :

Draft recommendation : The Applicant Guidebook should allow individual
governments to file an objection based on specific national public interest
concerns.


On a side note, the wording of the second sentence could be improved by
saying something like :

*Individual governments may, in the last resort, block by law TLDs raising
public interest concerns at the national level, but they have to be heard in
the introduction process and be provided the opportunity to make their case
and describe the potential impact the TLD might have.*


In other words, the idea is to provide the avenue for a fair hearing of
governments concerns in the introductory process, recognizing that if the
string is approved nonetheless, they will retain in any case the possibility
to block.

I hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand



On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> gac mailing list
> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")