Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

This with Avri's clarification points re status of AC being the appellant
 is fine by me (and I suspect ALAC / At-Large as well)  but not confirmed
 individuals will need to weigh in here and Evan can check with At-Large ?
ALAC lists


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 15 September 2010 16:00, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> this works for me.
>
> and then the voting correlate would be that to bar any string a
> supermajority of the board would be needed.
>
> with the assumption that if the appellant is either the GAC or ALAC, the
> board would then discuss their decision with them as required in the bylaw
> currently for GAC should they be requested to do so by the AC.
>
> a.
>
> On 15 Sep 2010, at 00:11, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > On the “advice” vs. “recommendation” issue, I think Mary got it exactly
> right here:
> >
> > For example, there's a difference (to my mind) between an expert opnion
> that "this series of words (i.e. the string) is contrary to a well-known
> principle of international law" and one that says "this string should not be
> approved because it is contrary to a well-known principle of international
> law". Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the expert opnion to be along the
> lines of the former, such that the Board then has to decide whether, in
> light of that finding, it will or won't approve the application?
> >
> > In other words, the experts can tell the Board that in their opinion a
> string is clearly contrary to principles of int. law, possibly contrary, or
> clearly not contrary. But it cannot and should not say,  “do not approve
> this string” or “do approve this string”
> >
> > That distinction may seem nuanced, but it really matters. It is the board
> making the decision, not the experts. This distinction is not quite
> captured, however, by the current proposal for 4.1, which says that the
> experts cannot provide advice or recommendations, which is why I voted
> against it.
> >
> > As I have said before, whether you call the experts’ report “advice” or
> “recommendation” or something does not matter much if the Board must have a
> supermajority to kill an application based on an objection, and it must have
> that supermajority regardless of what the experts said.
> >
> > So in my opinion, the board should NOT vote to approve or discard the
> decision handed to it by the experts. It should use the experts’ report as
> an input to its decision. The decision is its own.
> >
> > --MM
> >
>
>
>