Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

[klaus.stoll]

Dear Alain, Dear Friends

Thanks for this important contribution and clarification.

Despite the fact that it is in parts very hard going I urge you to read the article Alain has mentioned: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/775.full
There is only one question to be asked in the context of granting exemptions to anyone and that question is: “Is there any specific reason that forces the fact that an exception has to be made?” and the article points us into a direction where this actually might be the case or not and why. If it is to protect human rights, that sounds good enough for me, but is that the case here?. Interestingly in the case of the RC cross this argument can be made, in the case of the IOC certainly not. The ILP concept is certainly an additional tool to demonstrate why the two are and can not be treated the same. This all said I still put Avri’s: IF ANY? in the center of all further deliberations.

There is another, maybe even more important reason to have a closer look at the ILP concept. In the origin and center of the exception debate stands, besides creed and self interest, the complicated and painful relationship between ICANN and the nation states. The concept of ILP might be able to help to clarify and defuse this relationship.

Just some thoughts

Klaus

From: Alain Berranger 
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:22 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
Subject: Re: Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

Dear Colleagues, 

The notion of "International Legal Personality (ILP)" as a "litmus test" was introduced in the NCSG Policy Committee's motion after early discussion in San José and later consideration. The Portugal representative at the GAC meeting in San José referred to similar notions in San José without however specifically mentioning "ILP" that I recall - I have not searched for the transcript. 

It should prove to be a tough test to pass for most international governmental and/or non-governmental organizations, to the exception of UN system organizations. The "UN+10" referred to by Klaus and Avri, is purely notional but a symbolic way of saying it is not going to be a lot (maybe 10?) of non-governmental organizations that can pass the test. It is hard for me to buy the "open floodgate" argument if the "ILP" fliter is applied.

Please see http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/775.full for a contextual enquiry into the concept of "International Legal Personality" in the form of a 2004 publication by J. E. Nijman from the U. of Amsterdam and review by Robert Kolb of the Université de Neuchâtel. 

Note the interesting  link  between  "ILP" and "Human Rights" - Robert Klob argues: "The theory of ILP thus comes down to a theory of human rights".

Alain 


On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM, klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org> wrote:

  Dear Friends

  Greetings. I think we need to limit the possibility to an absolute minimum, (UN + 10 max), IF ANY !, everything else will as Avri says open up the flood gates and make the whole gTLD system unmanageable because there will we hundreds if not thousands of exceptions and an equal number of legal actions for those who think they deserve them.

  Yours

  Klaus

  From: Robin Gross 
  Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 5:51 PM
  To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
  Subject: Re: Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

  Thanks.  I thought we were going to add "IF ANY" to the clause asking about what other orgs deserve such rights?  I worry that we are inviting a flood gate of requests for privileges by assuming there will be others (rather than ask the question IF there should be others first). 

  Robin



  On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:


    Hello everyone,

    The NCSG Policy Committee agreed that, in view of the passage of the motion which adopted the IOC-RC Drafting Team's recommendations for first-round protections for the IOC and RC, the GNSO should consider additional protections - including any that might apply to other international governmental organizations (IGOs) who have requested similar protections - through a full Policy Development Process (PDP) rather than through an ad-hoc drafting team.

    Accordingly, we proposed a motion that will be discussed at the upcoming GNSO Council meeting next week on Thursday 12 April. Coincidentally, a similar (but not identical) motion was also proposed by Thomas Rickert, the Nominating Committee appointee to the Contracted Parties' House. Both motions can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+April+2012.

    Between now and the Council meeting, we'll be discussing with Thomas ways to combine both motions so that the Council need only vote on one unified motion. Early indications are that the concept is acceptable to some of the other Council members, so I'm hopeful that if we can successfully fuse both motions, there is a fair chance of its passage.

    Cheers
    Mary


    Mary W S Wong
    Professor of Law
    Chair, Graduate IP Programs
    Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
    UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
    Two White Street
    Concord, NH 03301
    USA
    Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
    Phone: 1-603-513-5143
    Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
    Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584





-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA 
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca

Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120408/1776da28/attachment-0001.html>