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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

let's talk about it in the meeting please, too many other threads going on in 
the next fifteen minutes to address here

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>  
>  

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************