[governance] Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement (was: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

[Mawaki Chango]

Absolutely correct, avri (please Wolfgang, don't say that again.)

In fact, there are even _national_ organizations that operate in the
international arena who enjoy a seige agreement with diplomatic
prerogatives. I guess this depends on the host country (national
sovereignty) just as it depends on the international treaties (for
the bigger picture: e.g., I imagine if an NGO engages in prohibited
arm traffic, the country that would offer them a diplomatic status
because, say, the President of that country is a big friend of the
NGO founder, may have some serious worries in the international
arena.)

If I'm not mistaken, an example of a national org. with diplomatic
status in some countries were they have a bureau is the Canadian IDRC
(International Development Research Centre). It is the Development
that is International, not the Centre. It is purely a Canadian
organization though they are not a totally public/governmental
agency, like CIDA (and though their staff is international due to
their activities and coverage), and they have siege agreement with
diplomatic prerogatives in several countries they are represented in,
if not all. Many other NGOs are in the same situation.

What about GTZ, by the way?

Mawaki

--- Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> <personal opinion>
> 
> On 27 jul 2006, at 08.33, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> 
> > Wolfgang:
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the option would be to have something like a "seat  
> > agreement" like the UN has in NYC. This is one option, but
> normally  
> > not the practice for non-govenrmental or private organisaitons
> but  
> > only for intergovernmental organisaiton operating under the
> Vienna  
> > Convention (which guarantees also diplomatic status to its  
> > employees). If you would prefer such a solution, you have to
> change  
> > ICANN into an intergovernmentl body. I would prefer to "invent"  
> > something which creates new procedures and practices, based on  
> > (good and bad) existing experiences from the 20st century
> diplomacy.
> 
> 
> i don't think this is at all the case.  there are many instances of
>  
> independent international organizations that are have host country 
> 
> agreement where they are governened by their by-laws and the  
> agreement they set with the country/countries that they make the  
> agreement with.  among the rules these international organizations 
> 
> can commit to are international law.  and among the rules they can 
> 
> agree to not be bound by are the ones that are based nationalist  
> laws.  the best know example is the Internation Red Cross.  And my 
> 
> favorite, lesser known example is the international potato center
> (CIP).
> 
> i think organization like this are international organizations but 
> 
> are not intergovernmental.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance