Draft Council letter on the ARR

[William Drake]

Carlos,

Right, sorry for the imprecision, I meant you cannot identify the person who said something.

cheers,

BD

On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Bill, it is more than names. Since 2002 the Rule (there is only one
> rule) states:
> 
> When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule,
> participants are free to use the information received, but neither the
> identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other
> participant, may be revealed.
> 
> This is more than names. I cannot say "Chuck Gomez said this", and I
> cannot say "the representative of Verisign said this " or even "the
> chair of GNSO said this".
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> William Drake wrote:
>> Robin
>> 
>> Chatham doesn't make it secret, it just strips out the names of who
>> said what.  The content still comes out. Other SGs feel that's
>> important to them being able to participate (pertains mostly to
>> inter-corporate squabbling) and I don't think we could have gotten a
>> consensus council statement without it.  And that council statement
>> does call for two way info flow with AC/SOs, which was not in the
>> staff proposal.  So less than perfect transparency, but more than
>> there'd have been otherwise.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for sending this draft council letter around.  It is very
>>> good except I do not agree that the review groups should operate
>>> under Chatham House Rules on confidentiality.  It would certainly
>>> be a step backward for a group that is to assess the openness and
>>> transparency of ICANN to operate in this secret fashion and
>>> contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and transparency.
>>> Everything else in the letter looks good however.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> Please see the attached draft and let me know if you have any
>>>> comments etc.  Otherwise I'll propose a motion tomorrow...
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> <Draft GNSO Council response to the draft proposal on the
>>>> Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation
>>>> Processes.pdf>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> Date: January 19,
>>>>> 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00 To: "William Drake"
>>>>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO Council List"
>>>>> <council at gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Council
>>>>> letter on the ARR
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please forward this to your SGs/Constituencies right away and
>>>>> request feedback.  The Council will need to make a decision on
>>>>> whether to submit the comments or some revised version of them
>>>>> in our 28 Jan meeting.  If anyone wants to make a motion in
>>>>> that regard, motions are needed by tomorrow, Wednesday, 20
>>>>> January.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William
>>>>>> Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:40 AM To: GNSO
>>>>>> Council List Subject: [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 at graduateinstitute.ch 
>>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html 
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>> 
>>  
>> 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100123/da228b7b/attachment.html>