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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My understandings of the areas for which Bertrand is seeking confirmation are 
inserted below.  Please let me know if you disagree.  Note that I also inserted 
a question for GAC participants at the end.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:37 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try following Mary's
> and Richard's comments
> 
> 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).
[Gomes, Chuck] Objections based on 'principles of international law' would 
apply to Rec6; objections based on national law and not on 'principles of 
international law' would apply to Rec20 (community objections).
> 
> 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).
[Gomes, Chuck] I believe this is accurate so it might be safer for an objector 
to use Rec20 (a community objection) because it might be less likely to be 
dismissed if it meets the community objection standing criteria.
> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I think this is correct.
> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] Bertrand/Frank/other GAC participants - am I correct that this 
may be a critical condition for the GAC?
> 
> 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")