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

[Bertrand de la Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

On the first point, see my separate response to Avri : one panel for the whole 
round is the preferable solution (rather than asking the Board to choose 
between that option and a panel per string) and if the Board makes the 
selection, the panel should probably be composed before the list of applied-for 
strings is made public.

On the second point, no offense taken. You are right about the privileged 
treatment mentioning one member of the group (bad precedent :-).

What about just adding the recommendation below with the mention "divergence" ? 
:

"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."

Best  

______________________
Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
Special Envoy for the Information Society/Délégué Spécial pour la Société de 
l'Information
French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs/Ministère des Affaires 
Etrangères et Européennes
tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 

On 21 sept. 2010, at 05:43, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 20 September 2010 21:13, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> 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.
> 
> There will always be bias in the selection of the experts.
> 
> Given that we have gone from a binding DRSP to a non-binding expert advisory 
> (without agreement on whether experts are expected to give advice), the 
> nature of the bias is far less critical than it used to be. The expert 
> research would provide an objective history of international law and treaty 
> related to the string. Personally, I am satisfied that the experts have 
> fulfilled their purpose once they answer that role, and after reading the 
> discussion I have come to agree that demanding an approve/reject 
> recommendation from the experts is taking us too far backwards in the 
> direction of the now-disgraced DRSP concept.
> 
> Without an accept/reject mandate, the task of the experts is clear and 
> objective -- does the string run afoul of international law and treaty -- and 
> as such, the level of bias involved in the selection of the experts is not 
> sufficient to bother me. The remaining question -- if the Board doesn't pick 
> them, then who? -- is IMO worth the bother if the experts arer kept in an 
> advisory role.
>  
> 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?
> 
> 
> As an implementation issue, the question is left open for the Board.
> 
> 
>  
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Not to be rude, but I don't think anyone else (or any group) who have been 
> the objector to a point has been invited to provide minority statements that 
> are part of the recommendation document. Why start now? Is this fair?
> 
>  - Evan
> 
>