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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Whilst i dont really see any way around this issue as "experts" need to be 
"experts". I can say from experience in the IRP , having argued "Generally 
Accepted Principles of International law", that is is EXTREMELY expensive. We 
hired Prof Jack Goldsmith and ICANN hired Prof David Caron and at least two of 
the IRP Panelist were also experts in International law. On Average, their fees 
were around $800 an hour each, so a 3 "expert" panel, charged with reviewing 
multiple treaties etc will lead to a cost of perhaps north of $100,000, rather 
than the $15,000-20,000 suggested in the AGB4. Both sides will need to "front" 
this money with the loser paying all the costs.

I am not bringing this up to try to change the suggested recommendation, but 
just to inform the group that very challenge is likely to result in a six 
figure fee. I am not sure ICANN will feel happy about paying these fees via its 
IO or "reduced fee" mechanism and I am sure these fees will "test the mettle" 
of any would be applicant. Perhaps that may be a good thing?






On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> 
>