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

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

Can anyone answer this question before the meeting?  If not, please raise it in 
the meeting Zahid.  Thanks.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:29 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        
        
        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

________________________________

        From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
        Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:11:34 -0500
        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
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >