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

[Bertrand de la Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I am not sure that during our discussions we have clarified the point : one 
panel for one round or one panel for each string.

I am more comfortable with the one panel for one round, or at least less 
worried. There is less potential for bias. Still, the designation by the Board 
only may be delicate; a possible solution could be for the panel to be composed 
BEFORE the list of applications is being released for the round.

The reason I felt there could be a panel selection for each objection is 
because that was the mechanism initially envisaged through the DRSP mechanism 
(ICC was to compose a specific panel for each objection).

The last point would be important to clarify, as it could remove my objection.

B.

  

______________________
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 03:13, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
>