[council] Rec6: International treaty and National law

[Ching Chiao]

Dear Chair, Councilors,

My saturday morning starts with a finding on Rec6 :-) If the following was
discussed before or the argument is misleading then I apologize. I am not an
International treaty / law expert BTW.

I came across the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" and "Convention on
the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women " for other
issues. In the Rec6 report there's full consensus support to add relevant
international treaties as examples.

Now, the question comes to -- how these international treaties are
accountable in jurisdiction of each country / territory. Here's a
very preliminary survey:

-- Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm: signed and
ratified by 192 UN Member States. U.S. signed but not ratified by the
Congress.
-- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women:
 not ratified in U.S.
-- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights:
not ratified in U.S.

Of course, Kyoto Protocol (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories) and
Convention of Cluster Munitions (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions) are another
two interesting facts.

On the Rec6 we see:

2.5 If individual governments have objections based on contradiction with
specific national laws, such objections may be submitted through the
Community Objections procedure using the standards outlined in AGv4.


3.3 National law not based on international principles should not be a valid
ground for an objection.


This could lead to several scenario:

-- Board may end of making invalid decision if referring to International
treaty / law.

-- Gov't representative in GAC may or may not fully aware of or have
expertise in relevant International treaty / law

-- Perspective government may NOT ratify / recognize the approved "Limited
Public Interest"

-- Having perspective government to rafity / recognize the approvied
"Limited Public Internet" would fall into lengthy bureaucratic process


If my observation is somehow correct, then in Brussels we could only witness
an open-end discussion. I understand that it is not, but alike, the process
of forming a new International treaty.


Let me stop here and please feel free to comment.


Regards,


Ching








-- 
Ching CHIAO
Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
=====================================
Email: chiao at registry.asia     Skype: chiao_rw
Mobile: +886-918211372  |  +86-13520187032
www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia
www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110212/8d726b9d/attachment.html>