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.

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@registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw

Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032