Re: [soac-mapo] Expert Panel should give recommendation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

so does the issue come down to what we mean by recommendation or what is 
contained in a recommendations?

a.  if a recommendation is non binding but comes in the form of we recommend 
that .offensive-ld should be rejected.

or 

b. we don't believe that the expert panel should offer an opinion.

I guess I am tending with a.  I do believe making a recommendation is a good 
forcing function for the expert panel.  I also believe that if they don't 
recommend it be rejected on the basis of international law, there is little for 
the Board to do.

I believe in all cases at the MaPO objection point in the review, the Board 
should _only_ be voting on whether the string be excluded or not.  It should 
never be a vote on approving the string since there are a whole lot more things 
to be considered in approving a string than just a MaPO 'recommendation' - i.e 
there isn't a full approval vote on the table, there is only a 'to be excluded' 
vote on the table at this point in the application review.

a.



On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:27, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Right, while I haven't talked to you about this directly, Philip, my 
> experience with experts and expert panels is that we should be clear. The 
> purpose of having experts is to use their expertise and task them with study, 
> anslysis, and providing recommendations, with background on what they 
> considered in developing their recommendations.  I also do not think that 
> panels should be 'skimped' on. 
> 
>  BUT, the Board, in my view, still holds the decision, even after
> advice comes to them. Still they have to vote. 
> 
> From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Expert Panel should give recommendation
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:43:44 +0200
> 
> Jon Nevett wrote:
> 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").
> -------------------------
> Jon, I believe you capture the distinction well.
> Where I (and perhaps Marlyn also) differ is in the belief that the advice is 
> unlikely to be clear cut.
> It is only by forcing your expert to provide a recommendation based upon the 
> balance of their expert advice, that you get value from the use of the expert.
> The Board is ill-equipped to be the expert.
>  
> Philip
>