I'm not so keen on the amendment re: Chatham House rule. I don't like the idea that the review teams can decide its a secret and its a secret. Its too easy and there is no limitation on what they can decide is an exceptional circumstance. I prefer the amendment we discussed in the call today which deletes the entire reference to Chatham House rule. Thanks, Robin On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Although I don't have a problem with the Chatham House rule, in > deference to other members' concerns and to avoid a scenario where > striking out the clause entirely would be an exercise unsupported > by the other groups, how about a friendly amendment along the lines > of: > > "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." > > It's been a long day here too (and not just because of vertical > integration and ICANN!) so if anyone more familiar with the issue > cares to amend further, please feel free! > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Franklin Pierce Law Center > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: [log in to unmask] > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 1/27/2010 3:28 PM > Subject: motion on Chatham > "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. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]