hello, so I will send the amendment it now if there is no objectiosn. Rafik 2010/1/28 William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Good morning, > > The Council call is in three hours and we need to get our proposed > amendments in. > > On the draft ARR and Chatham, we have two options. > > 1. Robin favors an absolutist approach in which CH is entirely struck, per > my suggestion yesterday: > > "Communications between the review teams and the SO/ACs should be prudent > and necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns." > > As I said, I suspect this would be regarded as unfriendly and would not > garner support outside NCSG. So we stand on a principle but lose, the > existing Chatham language stays in, and we get our least preferred outcome. > Not the best way to conclude some game theory, in my view. > > 2. Mary's language offers an incremental improvement: > > "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." > > This has the advantage of probably being regarded as friendly and passable > with business support. It leaves open what constitutes an exceptional > circumstance. IF the Selectors and RTs decided to take this Council advise > on board in their operating agreements (by no means a foregone conclusion) > and when it came time for RT members to periodically fill in their AC/SOs > someone said well this particular communication should be under Chatham, > there'd be the possibility to debate whether the situation is really > exceptional and the content being conveyed has to be scrubbed of names. The > RTs are supposed to operate by consensus normally, one would think this > could ultimately play out in a manner we find suitable. Worst case > scenario, for a given communication, a GNSO RT member might have to say > something like "there was a majority feeling in the team that x while a > minority felt y." Personally, while at the level of principle this seems > less desirable, in practice I don't see it as a massive blow to > transparency. With (hopefully) teams of like 15 comprising representatives > with pretty much know positions anyway, I suspect we'd be able to glean > who's saying what from the account if that really is material. > > So my suggestion to Rafik is that he submit Mary's version of the motion > rather than mine, ASAP. Let's have something that can pass and actually be > helpful rather than standing on an unsupported principle and getting a worse > outcome (if any). > > It should also be noted that yesterday night the IPC put forward an > amendment regarding the support teams, which Chuck took on board as > friendly: > * > * > > "Even if the size of the review teams is expanded per the above, managing > all the work envisaged over extended time periods will be very challenging. > As such, it is reasonable to expect that there will be instances where some > task-specific support may be needed, e.g. with data collection, that would > impose a substantial burden on both team members and the staff. One way of > addressing these challenges would be to constitute a support team for each > review that can be turned to for targeted assistance. The review teams could > draw such teams – but not exclusively - from the pools of nominees that were > not selected for review team membership. If those pools were not > sufficiently robust or did not offer the specialized expertise needed, the > SO/ACs could suggest additional names for consideration by the review > teams." > > This is mostly editorial, but the key point is at the end: instead of the > Selectors deciding from names submitted, it would be the RTs themselves that > do this. I think this is an improvement, enhancing RT soverignty rather > giving automatic deference to the Selectors. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > >