[council] IGO/RC motion

[Alan Greenberg]

At 24/07/2014 06:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we
> > give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO
> > protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I
> > would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.
>
>My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the
>the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the
>proposed amendments.  I do not think the reopened group has the option
>to change the proposed amendments.
>
>A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule
>this is being presented under would not allow that.  If we wanted that,
>we would need to change the amendments before sending them.
>
>avri

I agree that if te WG is to consider it, it must be included by us 
when we send it to them. There is nothing as I see it that limits 
what we put in to what was in the letter. If adding this makes it 
more palatable to the NCSG, I think it is fair game to propose adding it.

Alan