Hi Katrina, everyone

 

In general I try not to rewrite documents circulated for review; I know folks have spent plenty of time working on them already and I don’t want to come in at the 11^th hour with largely cosmetic changes just ‘cos I am fussy about the grammar or language. Also that with many matters there is a history and perhaps a specific reason why wording is how it is.

 

However that said I am very happy when requested to read anything through and double check that from a native English speaker perspective it reads nicely, and also that it says what we thought we meant it to say. Especially if a bit of editing could end up with a shorter document 😊

 

Best wishes

Nick  

 

 

>I believe the all document should be reviewed by a UK mother tongue for a language

 

It was reviewed by Martin Boyle, Stephen Deerhake, David McAuley J It does not mean the texts cannot be improved though.

 

>The same UK mother tongue should draft a paragraph about the possible decision of non-appointing anyone.

 

If we always waited for native speakers to come up with suggestions, we would move forward very (very) slowly J Anyone can suggest.

In this case, however, we’re looking at Nick. Nick?

 

>Regarding the use of future tense, the European Commission guidelines for documents and procedures in English suggest what I corrected.

 

All our guidelines are written in future tense (for me it was very difficult to accept this as it is unnatural for legal texts in Latvian).

 

>As for the final Chair and vice-chairs decision, the text should be refined. As it reads now, it does not support a bottom-up and transparent approach.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

Again, as I explained, when you have to apply diversity on top of diversity on top of diversity, it cannot be either bottom-up or transparent.

 

>Regarding the example in article 6.1, the language should be improved. Eventually, it would be recommendable to have the example in a footnote.

 

Yup, will move it to a footnote. Any suggestions to improve the language are welcome.

 

Regards,

 

]{atrina

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Giovanni,

 

Thank you for your suggestions and comments.

 

I’ll try to address your questions:

 

1. Who receives requests: unfortunately, at the moment, there is no clear channel via which requests can be received. Sometimes they are sent to the Secretariat, sometimes directly to the chair, sometimes we find them in Board’s resolutions, etc. Therefore, until one channel is established, it is indeed the ccNSO in its broader sense that receives those requests.
2. Article 5: the general timeline is defined in the guideline. If it does not allow to meet the deadline in the original request, then the Council needs to decide on a different timeline.
3. Article 5.1. – no, any next working day.
4. Article 6.1. – if not specified, then calendar days. What’s so convulted about the example? We’ve used it many times before J
5. Article 6.2. – if a candidate with almost full support of the Council has not been accepted, then how can you describe it as “taking into account the outcome of the Council vote as much as possible”? However, the second most preferred candidate may not be accepted. Please note that this clause (first introduced in the IFRT appointment guideline that the Council agreed to follow last August) is meant ONLY for those cases when there are additional requirements for members. For example, as it was for the IFRT - EACH of the appointed members had to be from a different region. In that case, if the second candidate is from the same region as the first one, the chair and vice-chairs will have to overturn Council vote. Same is true if the third one is also from the same region. If there are additional requirements on top of the regional diversity, e.g. requirements for gender balance, it adds additional complexity and maybe even third or fourth candidates cannot be accepted. However, at some point the chair and vice-chairs need to start thinking about the skill set.. such weighting cannot be efficiently done by a group of 18 people. Therefore, at some point, we just have to trust those three. If you don’t, then, perhaps, such people should not be entrusted with the respective roles of chair and vice-chairs.
6. About the use of future tense in guidelines – I asked about that when the GRC first started reviewing the guidelines and was told by Lesley that this is a normal thing to say “will appoint”, “will report”, etc. in legal(ish) document s in English. Other native speakers on the GRC also have never objected to this.
7. According to the Bylaws, the ccNSO develops its own internal procedures. We call them guidelines (in terms of the Pirates of the Carribean) but when we refer to them in terms of the Bylaws, I think it is correct to call them Procedures.

 

Please suggest the wording and the place for the paragraph about the decision not to appoint anyone. I still believe it is covered by other procedures (all requests are first reviewed by the Triage Committee, then discussed by the Council..) but it is not a problem to add something in this guideline as well.

 

Kind regards,

 

]{atrina

 

 

 

 

Hi Katrina,

 

Thanks for sharing it.

 

I made several edits to improve the document flow.

 

I fully agree with Nick to include a paragraph about a possible decision of the Council not to appoint anyone for a specific group.

 

Best,

 

Giovanni

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Here is another guideline for you to review before we send it to the community for their feedback.

 

In many cases we have specific guidelines that describe procedure of how we select members to certain groups, e.g. to CSC, IFRT, review teams. But sometimes we do n ot have a specific guideline for the process, e.g. when we are asked to appoint somebody to a CCWG. For those cases, the Guidelines Review Committee developed a general guideline.

 

Please have a look and let me know if there are any suggestions/ideas/corrections by the end of the week.

 

Kind regards,

 

]{atrina

 

Disclaimer:

 

  ­­