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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

I think what I read was that appointment of panelist by any
stakeholder group or advisory committee was something what would be
inappropriate.

If I read you correctly, I agree with that position, especially if it
were the group(s) that had raised the objection(s) making the
appointment(s).

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
http://blog.jothan.com


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>