[CCWG-ACCT] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v5.4 reflecting Paris and new Non-Disclosure rule
rickert at anwaelte.de
Fri Jul 24 11:11:16 UTC 2015
you are correct.
We should put in the bylaws what is required to achieve our goals.
We should avoid putting redundant language in there as that may cause ambiguity.
Not everything we need to accomplish needs to be put in the bylaws. We should only put into the bylaws what needs to be in the bylaws and put other areas into policies or other documents to abide by.
> Am 24.07.2015 um 09:07 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
> Hi Nigel,
> I agree, but I took Thomas' comment to mean, 'the fewest bylaws changes necessary to accomplish our goals.' I also agree with that, particularly for WS1.
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:>
>> That's like saying let's keep legislative changes to the minumum. It MAY be appropriate, but it may not.
>> It's not an end in itself.
>>> On 07/24/2015 07:44 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>> .. Let's try to keep bylaw changes to a minimum.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community