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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

On the “advice” vs. “recommendation” issue, I think Mary got it exactly right 
here:

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?

In other words, the experts can tell the Board that in their opinion a string 
is clearly contrary to principles of int. law, possibly contrary, or clearly 
not contrary. But it cannot and should not say,  “do not approve this string” 
or “do approve this string”

That distinction may seem nuanced, but it really matters. It is the board 
making the decision, not the experts. This distinction is not quite captured, 
however, by the current proposal for 4.1, which says that the experts cannot 
provide advice or recommendations, which is why I voted against it.

As I have said before, whether you call the experts’ report “advice” or 
“recommendation” or something does not matter much if the Board must have a 
supermajority to kill an application based on an objection, and it must have 
that supermajority regardless of what the experts said.

So in my opinion, the board should NOT vote to approve or discard the decision 
handed to it by the experts. It should use the experts’ report as an input to 
its decision. The decision is its own.

--MM