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

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

As Avri says, one nice thing about an Issue Report is the opportunity to
bring up these points during the process. I expect that NCSG members
will have plenty to contribute!
 
As for the proposed motion, the current discussion is to keep the
mention of international legal personality in the Whereas clause (so as
to acknowledge its proposal by NPCO in Costa Rica) but that the Resolved
clause referring to what goes into the Issue Report say something like
"criteria for the protection of international governmental
organizations, if any".
 
That should be broad enough to encompass the discussion we are already
having on this list, without presuming the outcome (e.g. that they
should be protected, or that they should be protected up to a certain
number/threshold).
 
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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Joy Liddicoat <joy at APC.ORG>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: 4/9/2012 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by
NCSG for PDP
Thanks Avri and for the link Klaus: interesting. 
I am not so convinced a human rights argument justifies international
legal personality for organisations (must read the book referred to) or
in any event for prioritising IGOs over the human rights and freedoms of
individuals. But, should it get this far, it could be a good case study
(even though it is an issues paper and not a PDP) for a human rights
impact analysis and consideration of how to balance competing or
conflicting sets of rights and freedoms ....
Cheers
Joy 
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 4:11 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

Hi,

In any case, what we are asking for at this point is an issues report
that studies these issues - moving beyond the beatification of RC/IOC. 
And one of the nice things about the new issues report methods is that
there is a review of the issues report that allows for the community to
point out issues that are not being handled properly in the report. 

As a reminder of what is invovled in the issues report (from the PDP
final report)

> Recommendation 10. Timeframe for delivery of Preliminary Issue Report

> (B)
> 
> § The PDP-WT recommends the modification of timeframes included in 
> clause 1 – Creation of an Issue Report in Annex A in relation to the

> development and delivery of an issues report as
> follows:
> 
> Within forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of either (i) an 
> instruction from the Board;
> (ii) a resolution from the GNSO Council; or (iii) a duly supported 
> request from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a 
> report (a “Preliminary Issue Report”). In the event the Staff Manager

> determines that more time is necessary to create the Preliminary
Issue 
> Report, the Staff Manager may request an extension of time for
completion of the Preliminary Issue Report, which request should be
discussed with the Requestor.

> Recommendation 11. Mandatory Public comment period on Preliminary 
> Issue Report (B) § The PDP-WT recommends that there is a mandatory 
> public comment period that follows the publication of a Preliminary 
> Issue Report and before the GNSO Council is asked to consider the 
> initiation of a PDP. Such a Public Comment period would, among other

> things, allow for additional information that may be missing from the

> Preliminary Issue Report, or the correction or updating of any 
> information in the Preliminary Issue Report. In addition, this would

> allow for members of the ICANN Community to express their views to
the 
> Council on whether or not to initiate a PDP. Depending on the
comments 
> received, ICANN staff would include public inputs and any necessary 
> corrections to the Preliminary Issue Report turning it into the Final
Issue Report and/or summarize the comments received for Council
consideration. If no comments are received on the Preliminary Issue
Report, the content of the Final Issue Report should be substantially
similar to the Preliminary Issue Report.
> 
> Recommendation 12. Role of workshops prior to initiating a PDP (M) §

> The PDP-WT recognizes the value of workshops on substantive issues 
> prior to the initiation of a PDP. It is therefore recommending that 
> information on the potential role of workshops and information 
> gathering events be provided in the PDP Manual. In addition, the 
> PDP-WT recommends that the GNSO Council should consider requiring
such 
> a workshop, on-line or face-to-face, on a specific issue during the 
> planning and initiation phase for a specific issue, when deemed 
> appropriate. The PDP-WT does not recommend mandating the use of 
> workshops prior to initiating a PDP. Furthermore, the PDP-WT
recommends that, if a workshop is held, invitations and/or announcements
for workshops are communicated as broadly as possible.

So lots of opportunities for discussion about all of these details, if
the Issues report motion succeeds.
And if we keep following the issues and are an active SG on this
topic.

avri



On 8 Apr 2012, at 10:22, Alain Berranger wrote:

> 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/20120410/0bf05209/attachment-0001.html>