[gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

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

Members of the ARR team,
 
I personally am willing to accept this amendment and the one by Wolf as 
friendly but I thought it would be a good idea to see if any of use disagree 
with either of these being considered friendly amendments.
 
Please let me know before today's meeting or in the meeting when we cover this.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:24 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: FW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR



 

 

Forwarded From: Rafik Dammak 



 

Hello Glen,

 

I have sent this message to the council list but it doesn't appear yet in the 
GNSO list archive and I am not sure that was received in that list.

Thanks,

 

Rafik

 

2010/1/28 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello,

 

I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part :

 

"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable

restrictions like the review teams' adherence to the Chatham House rule, and 
the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the 
opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major 
concerns." 

 

with that one

 

"It is expected that any communications or other input sought and received will 
be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise prudence and make use 
of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey 
major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or AC, the review teams or 
members thereof may consider it necessary to subject such communications or 
other input to reasonable restrictions such as the Chatham House rule, and 
where this is the case, the relevant parties to the affected communication or 
input shall, as far as possible, be informed in advance."

 

Regards

 

Rafik

 

2010/1/28 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

         

        
        I would accept this as a friendly amendment.  Stephan, as the seconder 
of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?
        
        Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.
        
        Chuck

        
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM
        > To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
        > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
        > Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        >
        > On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the
        > following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST).
        > The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more
        > flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves
        > organize their support teams rather than to constitute
        > support teams in advance.
        >
        > Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
        >
        >
        > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
        > Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
        > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35
        > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
        > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
        > Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        >
        > Thanks Wolf.  If you could propose a suggested edit, it would
        > be very helpful.
        >
        > Chuck
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
        > KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM
        > > To: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
        > > Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        > >
        > >
        > > Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to
        > > address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear
        > > distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs
        > > emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has
        > > carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be
        > regulated.
        > > If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
        > >
        > > Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
        > >
        > > Wolf-Ulrich
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
        > > Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von William Drake
        > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40
        > > An: GNSO Council List
        > > Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        > >
        > > Hello,
        > >
        > > Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the
        > > draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and
        > > Implementation Processes, for discussion with our
        > respective SGs and
        > > in the Council.
        > >
        > > Best,
        > >
        > > Bill
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >