Re: [soac-mapo] Comments on 4.2 and 5.4

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


On 20 Sep 2010, at 18:33, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> As promised on the call, please find below comments regardig Rec 4.2 and 5.4.
> 
> On 4.2 : Some members of the group have highlighted the importance of not 
> giving the Board the responsibiity to pick and choose the individual experts 
> : were it done on a case by case basis, this could lead to a bias in the 
> selection of experts. The constitution of a permanent panel could be explored.

I had thought that the idea was that there would be one set of experts for the 
round. Not a set for each objection.  Did I completely misunderstand?

> 
> On 5.4 : At least one participant in the working group highlighted that a 
> simple majority in the Board should not be sufficient to approve a string if 
> the recommendation of the expert panel is that the string is contrary to 
> principles of International law. A super majority should be required.

How is it that we are determining that a name is against International law, 
other than the decision of the Board based on the expert's 
analysis/recommendation.  In the case that the Board does not uphold the 
objection and the string continues through the application process, how is it 
possible that there would be a string brought for approval at the end of the 
process that is against international law?

I do not disagree with indicating that one member highlighted this point.  I 
just do not understand how it is a possible condition.

a.