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.