Indeed, it is the available record, or legislative history, or Travaux
Preparatoires that become a mechanism for clarification, study
and further discussion when necessary.
Roy Balleste
Law Library Director &
Associate Professor of Law
305-623-2341
305-623-2337 (fax)
From: Non-Commercial
User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010
12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Draft Council letter
on the ARR
I was against the Chatham Rule for IGF MAG and I'm against it in this
public governance institution.
Here is an example of why I think its a problem. During my first
year on the MAG, I worked hard to try to get "human rights" as one of
the cross-cutting issues to address all themes. A number of civil society
members on the MAG and a few govt folks also advocated for this and it was about
to pass. Then, at the the last moment, a certain govt official on the MAG
(1 person representing a country with a tiny population) said "no" to
human rights as a cross-cutting issue and it was DEAD. Under these
Chatham House Rules none of us can say what single country blocked the topic of
human rights from making it onto the IGF agenda.
The next year, I tried again to get human rights as a main
theme/cross-cutting issue. But due to the slowness of the UN in
re-appointing the MAG, the meeting at which this decision was being made was
open and so Chatham Rules did not apply. Again a number of civil society
actors weighed in for human rights to be prominent in the agenda. But
this year a different country,
Robin
On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:10 AM,
Robin
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,
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:
Date:
January 19, 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00Subject: 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]