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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Just got to this, so cancel my earlier comment that I had received no response!
I have the same problem as BdlC - dashing off the IGF events. This explanation 
is useful but I have to go now and can't respond ;-(

> -----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).
> 
> 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")