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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not understand why you think a recommendation is de-facto binding if it is 
explicitly not binding.

I think the Board knows that advice is non binding - they have shown that on 
several occasions, and would behave accordingly.

I agree with those who think that an group advisers making a recommendation 
regarding the validity of an object according to International law is a forcing 
function the focuses them on the point.    And I have no doubt that the board 
will make its own decision.

a.


On 21 Sep 2010, at 05:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
> 
>