Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Expert panel appointment

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Once we've made the (critical and correct) determination that this body
exists to provide objective advice based on law and fact (rather than
subjective dispute resolution based on morality), the importance of the
origin of the experts wanes substantially.

It is my understanding that such experts would be charged with a fairly
straightforward analysis: does an objection through this process have
grounds on principles of international law? This task is far better suited
to researcher than to advocate.Given this fairly narrow scope, and the
deliberate lack of demand for interpretation or judgment, I would think that
the risk of bias would be lower. The fact that the advice is to be open and
transparent, and that the Board is free to ignore its recommendations make
the threat lower still; indeed, the experts must convince a Board
supermajority of the legitimacy of an objection claim.

In all, I'd call the selection of the expert panel a matter of
implementation rather than policy. What matters from a policy POV are the
bounds of the panel's operation and its members' expected fields of
expertise.

I have a general problem with the GAC being given unique special privilege
to appoint a panel member, given the high likelihood that GAC members may be
objectors, a GAC-appointed expert is a conflict by design. Beyond that I
have no real preference, in fact I personally would feel fine letting the
Board pick its own experts given the bounds we will put on their input.

- Evan