Carlos, Right, sorry for the imprecision, I meant you cannot identify the person who said something. cheers, BD On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Bill, it is more than names. Since 2002 the Rule (there is only one > rule) states: > > When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, > participants are free to use the information received, but neither the > identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other > participant, may be revealed. > > This is more than names. I cannot say "Chuck Gomez said this", and I > cannot say "the representative of Verisign said this " or even "the > chair of GNSO said this". > > --c.a. > > William Drake wrote: >> Robin >> >> Chatham doesn't make it secret, it just strips out the names of who >> said what. The content still comes out. Other SGs feel that's >> important to them being able to participate (pertains mostly to >> inter-corporate squabbling) and I don't think we could have gotten a >> consensus council statement without it. And that council statement >> does call for two way info flow with AC/SOs, which was not in the >> staff proposal. So less than perfect transparency, but more than >> there'd have been otherwise. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> Thanks for sending this draft council letter around. It is very >>> good except I do not agree that the review groups should operate >>> under Chatham House Rules on confidentiality. It would certainly >>> be a step backward for a group that is to assess the openness and >>> transparency of ICANN to operate in this secret fashion and >>> contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and transparency. >>> Everything else in the letter looks good however. >>> >>> Thanks, Robin >>> >>> >>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Please see the attached draft and let me know if you have any >>>> comments etc. Otherwise I'll propose a motion tomorrow... >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> <Draft GNSO Council response to the draft proposal on the >>>> Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation >>>> Processes.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]> Date: January 19, >>>>> 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00 To: "William Drake" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "GNSO Council List" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Council >>>>> letter on the ARR >>>>> >>>>> Please forward this to your SGs/Constituencies right away and >>>>> request feedback. The Council will need to make a decision on >>>>> whether to submit the comments or some revised version of them >>>>> in our 28 Jan meeting. If anyone wants to make a motion in >>>>> that regard, motions are needed by tomorrow, Wednesday, 20 >>>>> January. >>>>> >>>>> Chuck >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William >>>>>> Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:40 AM To: GNSO >>>>>> Council List Subject: [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 [log in to unmask] >>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> >> >>