Re: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Dear All,
>
> Please find below the draft recommendations that came out of today’s CWG
> Rec 6 WG meeting. For those on the call, please let me know if I’ve missed
> or misstated anything. For those of you that were not on the call, if you do
> not agree with one or more of these draft recommendations, please share your
> objection and reason for objection with the mailing list.
>
> *USE OF MORALITY & PUBLIC ORDER TERMS
>
> Draft Recommendation: *Remove the references to Morality & Public Order in
> the Draft Applicant Guidebook as far as these are being used as an
> international standard and replace them with the term ‘Public Order
> Objections’. Further details about what is meant with ‘Public Order
> Objection’ would need to be worked out to ensure that it does not create any
> confusion or contravene other existing principles such as principle G.
>

Carlton:  The term "*Public Interest Objections*" agreeable

>
> *INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW*
>
> *Draft Recommendation**:* Give serious consideration to other treaties to
> be added as examples (see list circulated by Marilyn Cade) in the Draft
> Applicant Guidebook, noting that these should serve as examples and not be
> interpreted as an exhaustive list.
>

Carlton:  Agreeable

>
> *Draft Recommendation:* Clarify that in the current Draft Applicant
> Guidebook, Individual governments are able to file an objection based on a
> national concern. At the end of the day, national governments will block
> what they don't like, but they have to be heard and make their case and the
> potential impact it might have.
>

Carlton:  To what end?  Are we suggesting that once it is aired then time is
given to see if there is a "pile on" to meet the threshold requirement?

>
> *Draft Recommendation:* Clarify terminology by using Principles of
> International Law instead of International Principles of law to make it
> consistent with what GNSO intended (possible implications to be further
> discussed in meeting tomorrow with Jones Day lawyer)
>

Carlton:  Agreeable

> *
> HIGH BOARD TRESHOLD FOR APPROVING / REJECTING
>
> Draft Recommendation [For further discussion on tomorrow’s meeting]**:* To
> reject a string for which a recommendation 6 objection has been filed, there
> should be a higher threshold of the board to approve a string / there should
> be a higher threshold to reject a string / a sub-set might require a higher
> threshold to approve.
>

Carlton: High threshold for rejection agreeable but is the assumption here
all objections have equal value and/or status?   Origin of objection?  Is
there a class structure?

> *
> *If you cannot participate in tomorrow’s meeting in which Carroll Dorgan
> from Jones Day will participate, please share any questions you would like
> to ask him with the mailing list so these can be put forward if time allows.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>