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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I added my personal understanding regarding Bertrand's and Avri's Rec.
4.2 comments below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 9:13 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Comments on 4.2 and 5.4
> 
> 
> 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?
[Gomes, Chuck] I thought that there would be a pool of experts from whom
a subset would be chosen for a given objection and that the Board would
be involved in approving the provider of experts but not that they would
be involved in selecting experts on a case by case basis.  In my
opinion, to do that would involve the Board in micro management, which I
think is not the appropriate for a Board of Directors.

> 
> >
> > 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.
>