Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

How do they buy things from private companies then?  I  thought all governments 
bought stuff from private companies?

I do understand the issue about paying for rights.  It is the same issue that 
people sometime make about having to pay some registrars extra in order to get 
privacy rights with relation to their registrations/whois - some argue that 
having to pay for one's right of privacy makes no sense.

a.

On 9 Sep 2010, at 06:50, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 
> Thanks, Frank. Helpful. In addition, my undrstanding is that some countries 
> would just not have a mechanism that is simple to make such payments to 
> private entities. 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:36:34 
> To: <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <mueller@xxxxxxx>; <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
> 
> On 8 September 2010 22:29, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sovereignity arises from a perception (may not be the right word) that no 
> country should be required to pay a foreign private entity for asserting its 
> rights.
> 
> No country need pay ICANN to block a TLD within its own borders.
> 
> Arguably, objecting to ICANN is an attempt to asset one country's sovereignty 
> over other countries -- turning local policy into global policy in the 
> absence of treaty. As such, an ICANN TLD objection goes beyond asserting 
> rights within a country's own jurisdiction, so the above perception is 
> inaccurate in this context.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> I am not familiar with international legal norms in this regard, others may 
> be able to elucidate 
>   
> Counties pay fees to (eg) ITU but these are voluntary and ITU is in any case 
> a treaty-based organisation.  The examples you mention are cases where the 
> organisations are domestic and under relevant jurisdiction.
> 
>   
> 
> ---- 
> Frank March 
> Senior Specialist Advisor 
> Digital Development 
> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development 
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON 
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165 
>  
> 
> 
> ----------------
> From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx>  
> [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx> ] On 
> Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:31 a.m.
> To: Frank March
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 September 2010 15:14, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Milton: 
>   
> sovereignity in a word.  I am conveying my interpretation of what the GAC 
> would be likely to respond with based on discussion held in previous GAC 
> meetings.  I do not seek to justify but to inform.
> 
> 
> Frank, I am puzzled by this. I do not understand the logical link between 
> countries' assertion of sovereignty and their demand not to pay to do this.
> 
> Countries pay for their own border maintenance, diplomatic staff, armies and 
> every other means used to implement their assertions of sovereignty. What is 
> the justification for being excused from bearing the cost of asserting such 
> rights in this instance?
> 
> For some reason I'm struck by a vision of a country attempting to try a case 
> in the Hague and then appealing for Legal Aid.
> 
> Someone please help me understand this point of view, beyond a universal 
> instinct to get others to pay for one's own expenses if one can get away with 
> it.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> newzealand.govt.nz <http://newzealand.govt.nz>  - connecting you to New 
> Zealand central & local government services 
> 
> 
> ----------------
> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with 
> it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you 
> are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the 
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error 
> and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete 
> the message and any attachment from your computer. 
> ----------------
>