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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Good question Chuck,

"Introduction process" was intended to cover the whole process from
submission to delegation, ie : before the TLD is actually entered in the
root. The idea was to distinguish the two phases : the capacity to voice
objections before the final decision, and the last resort option to block if
the TLD is introduced.

But you are right and we could instead use a term of the DAG, like "the
evaluation process" or "during the objection period".

B.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  It seems to me that Bertrand’s suggestions are helpful.  Does anyone
> disagree?  I do have one question though: what is meant by ‘introduction
> process’?  Is that the ‘Initial Evaluation Process’ or something different?
> We should use a term that is used in AGv4.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:23 AM
> *To:* Marika Konings
> *Cc:* soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government
> objections)
>
>
>
> 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")
>



-- 
____________________
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")