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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree it's an important nuance.   

Would it be acceptable to include the following sentence in proposals (such as 
Evan's and Mary's) that talk about expert advice --  'such advice may include a 
recommendation as to whether the application meets the standard described in 
this Objection process".

RT


On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>