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

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

Thanks Caroline.
 
Chuck

________________________________

        From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:20 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
        
        
        I am fine with both of these and would consider them friendly 
amendments.
         
        Thanks.
         
        Caroline.
         
        From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: 28 January 2010 10:12
        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
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >