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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

We are still getting confused between an outsourced dispute resolution service 
and a panel experts giving the board advice to help the board make a decision. 

There is a radical difference between the two. An expert panel that is expected 
to tell the board "yes" or "no" on whether to uphold an objection would be 
empowered to make life or death decisions regarding TLD applications. It would 
be in effect, an international court. The board would defer to its expertise 
and a few people on this WG actually believe that a supermajority should be 
required to overrule it. 

We don't want to go there. 

The board is supposed to be the one making the decision - we have consensus on 
that. 

What I don't want to see happen is us confusing the board, and everyone else, 
by telling an expert advisory panel to - de facto - make a binding decision. As 
Evan suggests, if that happens the composition of the panel becomes very 
political and very important, and we have shifted very important forms of 
global law making into the hands of a completely unaccountable group (once 
again). 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:00 AM
> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Cc: Gisella Gruber-White; Margie Milam; Marika Konings; soac-
> mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Comments on 4.2 and 5.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/09/2010 00:33, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote :
> > 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.
> 
> If the recommendation of the expert panel is that the string is contrary
> to principles of international law, I gather that the experts will
> recommend a rejection of the string, in which case would 5.1 apply. (and
> I know this only has weak support)
> I think this might be a non-issue. Through its bylaws, the Board is
> bound to act lawfully. Would it not be unlawful for it to allow a string
> that it contrary to principles of international law?
> Warm regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>