RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, your understanding as to how the process would work (below) is
what I had in mind when thinking about appropriate language for Rec 4.1,
as I thought it ought to be clarified. If this group already disagrees
(at least in some respects) and/or are querying how the dispute
resolution process should work, it seems to me we need some form of Rec
4.1 so that these questions are less likely to arise again in the next
version of the AGB.
 
Also, and since the current AGB (v4) has a fairly detailed but
streamlined objection procedure (from specifying the maximum length of a
response to time limits). doesn't require an in-person hearing, and
recommends resolution within 45 days of the panel appointment, the
question about "advice" versus "recommendation" can be significant, not
necessarily just semantic.
 
For example, there's a difference (to my mind) between an expert opnion
that "this series of words (i.e. the string) is contrary to a well-known
principle of international law" and one that says "this string should
not be approved because it is contrary to a well-known principle of
international law". Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the expert
opnion to be along the lines of the former, such that the Board then has
to decide whether, in light of that finding, it will or won't approve
the application?
 
Another question has already been raised, viz., whether the Board
"should", "must" or "may" consult experts in regard to international
law.
 
I can try to take another stab at 4.1, to simplify/shorten it and to
indicate that the Board must consult experts when international law
questions are on the table. Unless that is not the consensus/will of
this group  ... ?
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> 


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Philip Sheppard
<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/14/2010 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP

Important question, Chuck. 
 
I don’t think I am advocating micro level involvement – but it depends
on what you mean by the micro level. 
As I envision it, the objection is made, the administrative stuff is
handled by the contractor, and the expert advice/report is received, the
Board reads it and makes a decision. Is that micro-level? 
 
What I don’t see as viable: the Board decides in each case whether to
engage an advisor, hears and weighs evidence from both parties, etc.,
then makes a decision. 
 
Your question has made me understand better why some feel there is no
distinction between “advice” and “recommendation.” What is in the expert
report? If it just says, “veto” or “don’t veto” then its easier for the
board but then the board is totally outsourcing the decision. I still
don’t want the advisory panel to make a decision, and I certainly don’t
want a Board supermajority to be required to overturn such a decision. I
would be ok with a “recommendation” from an expert panel if the Board
still had to vote by a supermajority to veto a TLD (regardless of what
rec the panel made). 
 
--MM
 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP

 
Milton,
 
Are you suggesting that the Board should be involved at a micro level
in evaluation of Rec6 string objections? 
 


As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu