Re: [soac-mapo] GAC nomination to expert panel/Expert Panel should give recommendation

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The way I understand where we are on the recommendation issue is that the 
expert panel should provide advice as to whether or not the string violates the 
applicable standard (e.g. "we have reviewed the objection, and based on x we 
believe that .tld would be in violation of the second prong of the standard in 
the following ways . . . ").  

There seems to be more concern over whether or not the panel then should 
recommend that the Board take a certain action based on that advice (e.g. 
"based on the foregoing, we recommend that the Board accept the objection and 
disapprove .tld").

I'm ok with this distinction between advice and recommendation, but I just 
wanted to be sure that we all are defining it the same way.

Thanks.

Jon


On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Perhaps a different way to think of this:  
> 
> The issue should be having a process to identify a pool of independent 
> experts from different 'expertise' areas.  For instance, a highly respected 
> legal jurist with a strong background in freedom of expression could be 
> identified by someone from CS, or NGO, or business, or a government. That 
> would not mean that jurist is identified with said 'nominator', since there 
> should be a totally separate process to recruit a pool of possible panelists 
> with wide ranging expertise.  It is also useful to remember that a good 
> number of former jurists are of course former public prosecutors, or judges, 
> etc, who are likely to have been employed by courts -- e.g. part of a 
> governmental system. 
> 
> I think it is inappropriate to consider having any panelists who are 
> identified with a stakeholder group or AC.  Expertise will allow the 
> Panelists to be the kind of neutral 'jurist' type -- that is what we should 
> seek for the panel of experts. 
> 
> In no way should anyone selected for a panel be chosen because they are 
> 'from' a group. I am a proponent of paid advice, with due diligence of 
> checking credentials, before being approved to go into the 'pool' of advisors 
> for a category, and of course, agreements which set out the requirements, 
> e.g. confidentiality as required, etc. 
> 
> I am therefore not so sure what the concern is about having someone, whether 
> from govrernment, NGO, business identify possible panelists that might be 
> recruited to the pool of panelists.
> 
> Secondly, I believe that the expert panel MUST study the application, 
> consider which existing 'norms' or treaties might be useful to consider, and 
> further MUST give recommendations. 
> I am aware that I am in the minority. 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] GAC may nominate person for expert panel
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:17:10 +0100
> From: Mark.Carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx; stuart@xxxxxxxxxx; richardtindal@xxxxxx; 
> heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx
> CC: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Heather
> 
> I think the proposal below may stem originally from an intervention from me 
> to the group about the composition of the expert panel and my enquiry whether 
> the GAC along with the other SOs and ACs would have the opportunity to 
> nominate independent experts. 
> 
> Bearing in mind the Greek proposal which had proposed a role for the GAC, I 
> wonder whether this merits consideration by the whole GAC? Maybe there should 
> now be an opportunity for all GAC members to comment, even if as Frank says 
> this particular proposal may not be a runner.
> 
> Mark
> 
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> 
> To: Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>; Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> 
> Cc: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Mon Sep 20 10:04:25 2010
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] GAC may nominate person for expert panel 
> 
> I agree with Stuart .. there is no need for this and the GAC is unlikely to 
> want to do it in any case
>  
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Digital Development
> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>  
> 
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Stuart Lawley
> Sent: Monday, 20 September 2010 8:20 p.m.
> To: Richard Tindal
> Cc: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] GAC may nominate person for expert panel
> 
> Absolutely no need for this.
> 
> 
> Stuart Lawley
> 
> Via Wireless
> 
> 
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> We've discussed this on calls and email,  and there seems to be a reasonable 
> level of support/ non-objection for it.
> 
> The Recommendation would look something like this:
> 
> Recommendation:    The GAC may nominate a suitably qualified expert panelist. 
>  In any situation where the GAC, or any of its members, are the initiator of 
> an objection, including any IO objection triggered by the GAC,  a GAC 
> nominated panelist shall be recused.  This recommendation shall in no way 
> alter or diminish the standard rules and procedures for challenging any 
> expert panelist.
> 
> I wanted to get a sense of the group and potentially doodle poll this.     Is 
> anyone strongly opposed to a recommendation of this nature?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> RT
> newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government 
> services 
> 
> 
> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with 
> it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you 
> are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the 
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error 
> and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete 
> the message and any attachment from your computer.
> 
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government 
> Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in 
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case 
> of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. 
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or 
> recorded for legal purposes.
> 
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure 
> Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in 
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On 
> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or 
> recorded for legal purposes.