RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Milton.  Please see my responses below.

 

Chuck

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
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? 

[Gomes, Chuck] Thanks. That clarifies for me what you are recommending.
You agree that the contractor should provide expert advice.  I was not
clear about that and it seemed inefficient to hire experts without
asking them to give advice.  With that understanding, I do not think
this would require micro-level involvement by the board.

 

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.

[Gomes, Chuck] I agree.  The Board does not need to be involved in
whether or not to engage an advisor in each case and to hear and weigh
evidence.  That would be micro involvement in my opinion.

 

 

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).

[Gomes, Chuck] Here is where you and I diverge.  I believe that the GNSO
recommendations support a process where a third panel makes a decision
that would be considered by the Board. To do less than that in my
opinion is to not take full advantage of the expertise of the panel. The
panel would be more qualified than the Board to make a definitive
decision based on the evidence and the criteria they are given.  That
does not take the final decision away from the Board.  The panel would
need to provide justification for its decision and the Board would
evaluate that justification against the same criteria to see if they
agree or disagree.

 

Thanks for the good discussion of this.

 

 

--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?