Hello Bill, I am willing to send the friendly amendment about the Chatham rules. I should wait or I can send Mary's suggestion? Regards Rafik 2010/1/28 William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Hi > > So on today's NCUC/SG call we discussed inter alia the draft GNSO public > comment on the AoC ARR. Again, in the last council call and in the drafting > team formed subsequently I raised NC's concerns about the staff > recommendation of very small drafting teams, and also noted that the draft > proposal didn't specify any means for review team communication and > coordination with the community. Hence included in the DT text was, > > "But at the same time, it would > be undesirable for the teams to work in hermetically sealed boxes cut off > from the > community, or to rely only on the public comment periods for input on the > review processes. > A mechanism should be established to allow an appropriate measure of > two-way > communication when needed. > The GNSO Council therefore proposes that review team members drawn from the > AC/SOs > be mandated to periodically update their nominating bodies on the main > developments and > issues of direct relevance to them. In parallel, these team members should > be able to solicit > inputs from their SO/ACs when this would be helpful, and be prepared to > pass along > unsolicited inputs that their nominating bodies agree would be particularly > important to take > under consideration." > > Subsequently, a concern was expressed that as stated these requirements > could increase the politicization of the process, e.g. if RT members report > back to their nominating AC/SOs that person x said y about actors/processes > z, or AC/SOs ask about the same, etc. It was thus suggested that there be > some limitation on the detail level, i.e. not necessarily on what was said, > but by whom. Hence, to garner the necessary support for the above, the DT > added, > > "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.1 > > fn 1 The Chatham House Rule is: "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." > http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule" > > While this compromise facilitated the quick consensus needed to have a > motion for consideration on tomorrow's Council call, when I shared the > document with this list a number of folks expressed misgivings about the > mention of the Chatham House rule. That being so, we can propose an > amendment to the motion striking this mention. I don't know that it will > pass, but even if not we get to make the points we always do about > transparency, for the record. (And of course, bear in mind, this is just a > GNSO response to the public comment period, it won't determine anything. > But hopefully the Selectors and chosen RT members will take on board the > other stuff in defining RT procedures and methods.) > > So, the motion could be to replace the above text with the following: > > "Communications between the review teams and the SO/ACs should be prudent > and necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns." > > Or something similar, if anyone cares to wordsmith (it's been a long day), > bearing in mind the need to meet the other SG's concerns at least part of > the way for an amendment to have a chance. > > Arvi pointed out that having led the drafting I shouldn't (can't?) be the > one to propose an amendment to it, so another councilor should, if we want > that. Rafik? > > 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 > *********************************************************** > > >