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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure how the rules will apply in exceptional circumstances.  

The Chatham House rules require non attribution in general (somewhat like the 
MAG) so not sure  how would this rule be implemented ONLY in exceptional 
circumstances and how this would be communicated in advance.  How will this 
work?

Hope I haven't misunderstood the amendment.






Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
 
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may 
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and 
constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:11:34 
To: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

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
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >