On Dec 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Jim wrote:
Without opining on the appropriateness of the MONGO
case - about
which I
know too little - I do want to comment on this.
If the findings of fact do not support the decision then they
should change.
The evidence page is for the different parties to present their
view, the
findings should then identify that evidence which demonstrates the
question
at issue, the principles should be stated, and then the decision
should
apply the principles to the findings. It is wasteful and wrong to
have to
completely review the evidence as well as the findings. Anyone can
propose
findings of fact - they just need to be endorsed by the arbcom - if
there
are aggregious examples they should be in the findings not buried
on the
evidence page.
My suspicion is that if the alleged evidence is not in the findings
because
there is some dispute as to the meaning or intepretation of that
evidence.
Thus they were not proposed as a finding since they would likely
not gain
the requisite support from members of the arbcom. Which is how it
should be.
I think the more likely cause is that I did not explain myself well
enough in making the findings of fact, giving appropriate example, etc.
Fred