Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jon that there should not be a reopening of ALL of the
community objection procedure.

The explicit mention of DAG v4 is only useful for the report
recommendation. I was trying to formulate a sentence that could be
inserted directly in a revised version of the AGB. In that case, the
formulation would only mention "the Community objection procedure".

The only point that could deserve some exploration is whether there is
any small addition to the Community Objection procedure that could
help cover more fully the GAC request regarding "sensitivities". If
not or if no agreement, then fine. In any case, this should not be a
priority for this group. Finalizing the other points is the priority.

B.



On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Richard:
> Changing the scope of the existing Community Objection standard was, indeed, 
> my concern.
> Some folks may also have been concerned that 2.2 refers to national law 
> versus international law.  I understand the Recommendation 6 objections must 
> be based on International law, but this recommendation only relates to 
> Community objections.  Nations should be eligible as communities, but there 
> shouldn't be new standards of community objections based on this point.
> I agree with Bertrand, as I think he mentioned on the last call, that certain 
> concerns based on national law fit within the existing Community objection 
> framework.  Therefore, I would support Recommendation 2.2. with the following 
> additions:
> “Recommendation 2.2: If individual governments have objections based on 
> contradiction with specific national laws, such objections MAY be submitted 
> through the Community Objections procedure OUTLINED IN DAGv4.”
> I do not support a recommendation that we undo all of the work on the scope 
> of community objections that already appears in DAGv4.
> Thanks.
> Jon
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> I was also surprised by the number of 'no' votes on this.
> In addition to the possible reasons suggested by Chuck (below) is it because 
> some felt that it implied a change to the existing Community Objection 
> standard?
> Am interested to hear why people voted against this.
> RT
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I have concerns about the poll results so far on the 
> following: “Recommendation 2.2: If individual governments have objections 
> based on contradiction with specific national laws, such objections should be 
> submitted through the Community Objections procedure?”It was my impression 
> that this was a very important point for governments and I believe that AGv4 
> allows it anyway.  For those that oppose this, is it because you don’t think 
> it should be stated by this group or do you think that the guidebook should 
> be changed to not allow this?  If the latter, I think that may be a problem 
> in terms of getting support of government members of our 
> group. Chuck From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>  Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations
> Importance: High
>

-- 
____________________
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")