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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

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.

Agreed. As per Avri's comment.


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.


I once again insist that the expert panel does not make decisions, therefore 
there is no such thing as a board decision that contradicts the expert panel's 
recommendation. In the structure we have created, that scenario simply doesn't 
exist. The panel provides an analysis and advice, and the board decides.

I understand that this can cut both ways: the panel may recommend that an 
objection be dismissed, and the board could still uphold it. Or vice versa. 
That is the way it must be.