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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

this works for me.

and then the voting correlate would be that to bar any string a supermajority 
of the board would be needed.

with the assumption that if the appellant is either the GAC or ALAC, the board 
would then discuss their decision with them as required in the bylaw currently 
for GAC should they be requested to do so by the AC.

a.

On 15 Sep 2010, at 00:11, 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
>