[soac-mapo] Re: replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try following Mary's and Richard's comments

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

Apologies for the silence, schedule in the IGF is pretty heavy.

Just to confirm that the approach is to distinguish the objections
based on universal principles (the framework for Rec 6 that we are
discussing here) and objections based on national law (that can use
the Community objection procedure).

Of course, one could envisage a government raising an objection
quoting a national law but with the additional comment that this law
is actually implementing (in it's view) an international principle. In
such a case, it would be discussed in the context of Rec 6 process (
and could be sustained or dismissed after evaluation).

The only point that I discovered myself during the conference call two
days ago is that a national law can legitimately be considered as
being the expression of a given community (the corresponding nation).
So, this justifies that a national law could be evaluated as
expressing the objection of this community, in the community
procedure. Does not mean the objection will necessarily be accepted.

As I said, I think the current community objection covers a good part
of the GAC Principles paragraph on sensitivities. But we may need to
examine this a little bit more in detail.

Hope this clarifies.

Best

Bertrand


On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have heard several govt representatives express their desire
> to raise TLD objections based on their local laws or “public interest”
> notions. Not on this list, however. But if no one supports that and it’s
> openly excluded as an option, then that’s great.
>
>
>
> That being said, I have no objection to national govts using the
> community objection process, on the same terms and conditions as any other
> community. What is unclear from Bertrand’s note, is whether this is a new
> procedure specifically tailored to allow a new channel of objections, or not. 
> If
> that could be clarified it would be good.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Gomes, Chuck
> [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:30 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Bertrand de La Chapelle; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try
> following Mary's and Richard's comments
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> I have not heard anyone advocating “giving
> governments the right to impose their national law on the rest of the world”
> and I question whether allowing a “community objection based on national law”
> does that, assuming of course that there are objective criteria for evaluating
> objections that do not allow that.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Milton
> L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:15 PM
> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try
> following Mary's and Richard's comments
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bertrand,
>
> The idea of giving governments the right to impose their
> national law on the rest of the world was soundly rejected by the consensus
> process. It doesn’t change that by calling it a “community
> objection” instead of a “national law” objection. I hope we
> don’t have to deal with a lot of other procedural tricks of this sort as
> we enter the end game.
>
>
>
> Any such amended recommendations will have to go through another
> polling process of course
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Bertrand
> de La Chapelle
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:54 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-mapo] replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try following
> Mary's and Richard's comments
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Should
> individual governments have objections based on contradiction with specific
> national laws, such objections should be submitted through the Community
> Objections  procedure.
>
> --
> ____________________
> 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")