Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

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."*

Regards

Rafik


2010/1/28 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35
> > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM
> > > To: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>