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

[Nicolas Adam]

Thx for sharing this.

haven't had the time to read this yet, but i'm hopeful it could be a 
good test, and it sounds definitely less expansive than what I thought 
ILP meant at first.

Nicolas

On 08/04/2012 10:22 AM, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>     *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 5:51 PM
>     *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
>>
>>     Phone: 1-603-513-5143 <tel: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 
> <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org 
> <http://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/20120411/40e81ddd/attachment-0001.html>