I am not sure how the rules will apply in exceptional circumstances.

The Chatham House rules require non attribution in general (somewhat like the MAG) so not sure how would this rule be implemented ONLY in exceptional circumstances and how this would be communicated in advance. How will this work?

Hope I haven't misunderstood the amendment.



Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:18:21 +0100
To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <ispcp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

what about Rafik's amendment, submitted on behalf of NCSG:


I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part :

"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." 

with that one

"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."

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

Yes

Le 27 janv. 2010 à 21:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :


I would accept this as a friendly amendment.  Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?

Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch;
council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: ispcp@icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the
following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST).
The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more
flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves
organize their support teams rather than to constitute
support teams in advance.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch;
council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: ispcp@icann.org
Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

Thanks Wolf.  If you could propose a suggested edit, it would
be very helpful.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
KnobenW@telekom.de
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM
To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: ispcp@icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR


Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to
address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear
distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs
emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has
carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be
regulated.  
If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.

Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40
An: GNSO Council List
Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

Hello,

Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the
draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and
Implementation Processes, for discussion with our
respective SGs and
in the Council.

Best,

Bill







***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************