<div dir="ltr">Hello Bill,<div><br></div><div>I am willing to send the friendly amendment about the Chatham rules.</div><div>I should wait or I can send Mary's suggestion?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br>
</div><div>Rafik</div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/28 William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi<br>
<br>
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,<br>
<br>
"But at the same time, it would<br>
be undesirable for the teams to work in hermetically sealed boxes cut off from the<br>
community, or to rely only on the public comment periods for input on the review processes.<br>
A mechanism should be established to allow an appropriate measure of two-way<br>
communication when needed.<br>
The GNSO Council therefore proposes that review team members drawn from the AC/SOs<br>
be mandated to periodically update their nominating bodies on the main developments and<br>
issues of direct relevance to them. In parallel, these team members should be able to solicit<br>
inputs from their SO/ACs when this would be helpful, and be prepared to pass along<br>
unsolicited inputs that their nominating bodies agree would be particularly important to take<br>
under consideration."<br>
<br>
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,<br>
<br>
"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable<br>
restrictions like the review teams’ adherence to the Chatham House rule, and the SO/ACs<br>
should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the opportunity when it is<br>
necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns.1<br>
<br>
fn 1 The Chatham House Rule is: "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham<br>
House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor<br>
the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."<br>
<a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule" target="_blank">http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule</a>"<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
So, the motion could be to replace the above text with the following:<br>
<br>
"Communications between the review teams and the SO/ACs should be prudent and necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
***********************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
Senior Associate<br>
Centre for International Governance<br>
Graduate Institute of International and<br>
Development Studies<br>
Geneva, Switzerland<br>
<font color="#888888"><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>
<a href="http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html" target="_blank">www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html</a><br>
***********************************************************<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>