Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 14 September 2010 14:15, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  If I understand correctly, the issue is not whether the expert advisors
> provide a hard recommendation or not. I personally believe that they should,
> but whether or not it is a requirement can be left to the Board to decide
> and reflect that decision in the contract. It is of course possible that the
> expert panel cannot come to a decision. But if the final decision is to be
> based on principles of international law, I find it hard to accept that the
> expert panel cannot decide, but the Board is supposed to be able to do so.
> The unspoken issue is that the final decision will be then based on
> politics...  No real surprise.
>

Certainly. However, a super-majority requirement to reject the string
ensures that the politics will have to be rather heavy duty. Not impossible,
but also not routine.


> Nevertheless, the issue here is whether the outcome of that expert panel is
> called a "decision" which the Board would then have to uphold or overturn,
> or is called "advice" which the Board can choose to follow or not.
>

I'd thought that horse was buried when we (appeared to have) agreed against
having a DSRP (based on its elsewhere-in-the-DAG definition). I personally
would like language similar to what I proposed for 4.1 that explicitly says
that the final decision rests with the Board and may not be delegated. I am
firmly on the side of "advice".

- Evan