motion on Chatham

[Robin Gross]

I'm not so keen on the amendment re: Chatham House rule.   I don't
like the idea that the review teams can decide its a secret and its a
secret.  Its too easy and there is no limitation on what they can
decide is an exceptional circumstance.  I prefer the amendment we
discussed in the call today which deletes the entire reference to
Chatham House rule.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> Although I don't have a problem with the Chatham House rule, in
> deference to other members' concerns and to avoid a scenario where
> striking out the clause entirely would be an exercise unsupported
> by the other groups, how about a friendly amendment along the lines
> of:
>
> "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."
>
> It's been a long day here too (and not just because of vertical
> integration and ICANN!) so if anyone more familiar with the issue
> cares to amend further, please feel free!
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
> >>>
> From:	William Drake <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH>
> To:	<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> Date:	1/27/2010 3:28 PM
> Subject:	motion on Chatham
> "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.




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100127/0cffbdbc/attachment.html>