<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [soac-mapo] replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try following Mary's and Richard's comments
- To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>, <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] replacement for 2.2 and 2.4 : next try following Mary's and Richard's comments
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:18:08 -0400
I do not believe that was Bertrand's intention but I will let him respond.
Chuck
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 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
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")
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|