Councilors and Drafting Team Members,
FYI. Please see some communication we just received from the OECD on the discussion this morning on the IOC/RC names and the difference between those names and IGOs.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:19 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Margie Milam
Subject: TR: Session on IOC/RC
Importance: High
Dear Nicola,
Thank you very much for your email. I have transmitted this to the working group’s mailing list and their chair, Jeff Neuman.
Kind regards,
Glen
De : Nicola.BONUCCI@oecd.org [mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI@oecd.org]
Envoyé : samedi 10 mars 2012 19:06
À : Glen de Saint Géry
Cc : Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV@oecd.org; Jill.SCHUKER@oecd.org; Sam.PALTRIDGE@oecd.org
Objet : Session on IOC/RC
Importance : Haute
Dear Glen,
I just heard part of the session on IOC/RC that you were chairing. Let me first congratulate the GNSO Working Group for its transparency in putting this session live…..I have to say however that ,as an international lawyer working in public international law for 25 years, I heard several statements that would cause any public international lawyer to jump on his/her seat such as "The IGO’s do not meet the same "criteria" than IOC/RC based on international law" (sic…)
Such statements do not stand scrutiny.
First, it should be noted that in public international law only states and intergovernmental international organizations are considered subjects of international law. This is clearly recognized by the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations and between International organizations (see http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_2_1986.pdf) which indicates that only “intergovernmental organizations” can conclude treaties. With all due respect for the two institutions in question they do not meet the 1986 Convention criteria .
Second, if you look at the treaty protection offered by public international law to the names and acronyms of IGO’s it is difficult to argue that it is not at least comparable if not stronger than the one offered to the two institutions in question.
I understand that GNSO and ICANN in general is concerned with precedent but I cannot but restate what the IGO already wrote in December 2011. We continue to stand ready to find a solution within the ICANN framework which we fully respect but we are not ready to give up what we consider to be a legitimate and reasonable request .
While I am not in Costa Rica I am ready to join any discussion via internet or on the phone (you had suggested a further GNSO working group discussion tomorrow at 12h00) and as you may know the OECD is represented in San José by Sam Paltridge whom you can get in touch with too.
Best regards
| Nicola Bonucci Directorate for Legal Affairs / Direction des affaires juridiques |
2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel: +33 1 45 24 80 77 – Fax: +33 1 44 30 62 45
nicola.bonucci@oecd.org || www.oecd.org
Follow us on:
