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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

I am concerned about the implication of Recommendation 4.5: "The contracted
advisors will be expected to have specific expertise in interpreting law
instruments of public international law ....." which would invariably lead
to a situation where the advisors are Lawyers from Law firms engaged by
ICANN at a thousand dollars an hour, which would necessitate equally
expensive counter measures on the part of the TLD applicant.

If this is a 'morality and public order' issue, by whatever name we call it,
why do we emphasize that the Advise needs to come from Lawyers and Law
firms? This is very Californian.

Sivasubramanian M

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Bertrand de la Chapelle <
bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>