Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Frank. Helpful. In addition, my undrstanding is that some countries 
would just not have a mechanism that is simple to make such payments to private 
entities. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:36:34 
To: <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <mueller@xxxxxxx>; <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections

On 8 September 2010 22:29, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
 
 
 
sovereignity arises from a perception (may not be the right word) that no 
country should be required to pay a foreign private entity for asserting its 
rights.

No country need pay ICANN to block a TLD within its own borders.

Arguably, objecting to ICANN is an attempt to asset one country's sovereignty 
over other countries -- turning local policy into global policy in the absence 
of treaty. As such, an ICANN TLD objection goes beyond asserting rights within 
a country's own jurisdiction, so the above perception is inaccurate in this 
context.
 
- Evan



 

 I am not familiar with international legal norms in this regard, others may be 
able to elucidate 
  
Counties pay fees to (eg) ITU but these are voluntary and ITU is in any case a 
treaty-based organisation.  The examples you mention are cases where the 
organisations are domestic and under relevant jurisdiction.
 
  
 
---- 
Frank March 
Senior Specialist Advisor 
Digital Development 
Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development 
33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON 
Mobile: (+64) 021 494165 
 
 
 
----------------
 From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx>  
[mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf 
Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:31 a.m.
To: Frank March
Cc: Milton L Mueller; soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections




 


 
On 8 September 2010 15:14, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
 
 
Hi Milton: 
  
sovereignity in a word.  I am conveying my interpretation of what the GAC would 
be likely to respond with based on discussion held in previous GAC meetings.  I 
do not seek to justify but to inform.
 

Frank, I am puzzled by this. I do not understand the logical link between 
countries' assertion of sovereignty and their demand not to pay to do this.

Countries pay for their own border maintenance, diplomatic staff, armies and 
every other means used to implement their assertions of sovereignty. What is 
the justification for being excused from bearing the cost of asserting such 
rights in this instance?

For some reason I'm struck by a vision of a country attempting to try a case in 
the Hague and then appealing for Legal Aid.

Someone please help me understand this point of view, beyond a universal 
instinct to get others to pay for one's own expenses if one can get away with 
it.

- Evan


 
newzealand.govt.nz <http://newzealand.govt.nz>  - connecting you to New Zealand 
central & local government services 

 
----------------
 Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with 
it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you 
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the 
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and 
that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the 
message and any attachment from your computer. 
----------------