motion on Chatham

[Rafik Dammak]

Hello Bill,

I am willing to send the friendly amendment about the Chatham rules.
I should wait or I can send Mary's suggestion?

Regards

Rafik




2010/1/28 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Hi
>
> 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,
>
> "But at the same time, it would
> be undesirable for the teams to work in hermetically sealed boxes cut off
> from the
> community, or to rely only on the public comment periods for input on the
> review processes.
> A mechanism should be established to allow an appropriate measure of
> two-way
> communication when needed.
> The GNSO Council therefore proposes that review team members drawn from the
> AC/SOs
> be mandated to periodically update their nominating bodies on the main
> developments and
> issues of direct relevance to them. In parallel, these team members should
> be able to solicit
> inputs from their SO/ACs when this would be helpful, and be prepared to
> pass along
> unsolicited inputs that their nominating bodies agree would be particularly
> important to take
> under consideration."
>
> 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,
>
> "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.1
>
> fn 1 The Chatham House Rule is: "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."
> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule"
>
> 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.)
>
> So, the motion could be to replace the above text with the following:
>
> "Communications between the review teams and the SO/ACs should be prudent
> and necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns."
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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/20100128/a6650fcb/attachment.html>