האם אפשר לקבל את התייחסותכם למייל מטה עד סוף השבוע?

תודה,

דבי

שלום רב,

אנא ראו להלן תשובות הקנדים בעניין הערות ששלחנו על כללי פרוצדורה. הערותיהם מופיעות באדום בגוף המייל של דבי.

לגבי ההערה הראשונה- אנו בדעה כי עדיף להותיר את הכללים ללא סעיף המתייחס לאפשרות הגשת מסמכים/עמדות לפאנל ביוזמת צדדים שלישיים (הצעת "הפשרה" של הקנדים) , אך גם להימנע מסעיף הדורש התייעצות עם הצדדים, שכן עצם קיומו של הסעיף יצביע על אפשרות קבלת חוות הדעת הנוספות.

לגבי ההערה השניה, אנו בדעה כי ניתן לקבל את ההצעה של הקנדים. שימו לב כי שם מדובר רק בחוות דעת המבוקשות ביוזמת הפאנל.

מצפות לשמוע את דעתכן.

בברכה

נטלי

Dear Debbie,

Please see our response embedded in your message below.

We will respond to your comments on the Code of Ethics shortly.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Ian

From: Dvora.Milstein@moital.gov.il [mailto:Dvora.Milstein@moital.gov.il]
Sent: March 18, 2012 9:00 AM
To: Medcalf, Ian -JLTA
Cc: Natalie.Gutman-Chen@moital.gov.il; Rachel.Hirshler@moital.gov.il
Subject: RE: Rules of Procedure Israel's comments Feb. 9, 2012

Dear Ian,

I apologize for not replying sooner to your e-mail below.

As to your proposal to include a provision allowing the panel to seek information we are prepared to receive a proposed texts in accordance with the following :

1.       The text should be very clear that the panel's right to seek information  does not include accepting unsolicited submissions.

Cda: Without prejudice to the modernization negotiations, we are willing to part from our preferred text that includes an explicit authorization for panels to allow non-governmental persons of a Party to provide written views regarding the dispute. However, we have difficulty with rules that explicitly prohibit Panels from accepting third party views. We think that the absence of an explicit departure from either of our preferences is a reasonable compromise. We are also willing both to require that the Panel consult with the Parties prior to accepting any information not submitted by the Parties and to provide that the information sought by the Panel must relate exclusively to the dispute that is being heard.

 2.       It is not clear to us the necessity of   two separate clauses as in  Article 13 of the  DSU to cover technical , scientific and expert advice/opinions. 

 Cda: The text could provide something along these lines:

       1. Subject to paragraph 2, Panels have the right to seek information and technical advice from any individual or body which it deems appropriate. However, before a panel seeks such information or advice, it shall inform the Parties and provide opportunity for them to comment on the relevance of the information that is sought. Confidential information which is provided shall not be revealed without formal authorization from the individual, body, or authorities of the Member providing the information.  

       2. Information solicited by the Panel must relate exclusively to the dispute that is being settled. 
 

3.       It is also  unnecessary in our view to include an expert review group which in our view would be quite a costly mechanism. 

We agree.

4.       We believe the  parties should be consulted before the panel requests expert opinions since it is another expense to be borne by the parties and they should have input in this regard. 

We agree.  

The reason we removed the "assistants" from the remuneration and payment provisions is for budgetary reasons . 

We look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Debbie