[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 21:19:08 UTC 2016
Dear All,
If the nombre of SO/ACis less than 4 ,the community power can not be
legally applied due to the fact that 3 SO/AC are not sufficient to decide
on any empowered case for 7 SO/AC .
this must be clearly mentioned in the text.
We can not destabilized the situation of an organization without having
atleast a simple majority of the constituent SO/AC i.e half plus one means
4 SO/AC
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-28 22:14 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear All,
>
> Please look at ICANN Mission and Commitment, you will find many areas in
> which taking actions are absolute necessity or absolute obligations.
> However, some of you insisted that we could not use the term “ shall “ .I
> did not push for that because they did not want to agree with things which
> were crystal clear. But now the same person who is one of the signatories
> of the proposed amendment just simply forgot his insistence that shall was
> incorrect in those example of ICANN Mission or Commitment.
>
> By the same argument I cannot agree with the use of “shall “.
>
> In addition to that in a conditional structure we have never used the
> term “ shall “ However, either of “ should “ or” would “ or” may “ could
> be used
>
> Best Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-02-28 21:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Colleagues
>> The only consistent struture is to replace the word " shall " ibn the
>> proposed text by either " should " or "would" BUT NOT SHALL
>> Sorry I do not agree with your argument either.
>> It haS nothing to do with natiove language and non native language
>> It is a matter of principle.
>> I WILL TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE USE OF SHALL
>> BesrRegardsK
>> KAVOUsS
>>
>> 2016-02-28 21:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear Colleagues
>>> The only consistent struture is
>>> If .....
>>>
>>> 2016-02-28 21:42 GMT+01:00 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>:
>>>
>>>> RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>>>
>>>> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
>>>> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
>>>>
>>>> 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
>>>> definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
>>>>
>>>> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>>>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>>> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>>>>
>>>> 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
>>>> there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
>>>> particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
>>>> implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
>>>> before implementing any behavior described with this label.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]
>>>>
>>>> RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
>>>> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
>>>> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
>>>> it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
>>>> An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
>>>> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
>>>> include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
>>>> same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
>>>> MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
>>>> does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
>>>> option provides.)
>>>>
>>>> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>>>>
>>>> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>>>> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>>>> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>>>> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
>>>> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>>>> on implementors where the method is not required for
>>>> interoperability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
>>>> imply mandatoriness."
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>> In four decades of U.S. legislative experience I have always seen
>>>> "shall" used to denote a mandatory outcome. "May", on the other hand,
>>>> allows for discretionary judgment -- and is usually accompanied by a
>>>> listing of considerations that should be considered in exercising that
>>>> discretion. I would note further that the current language we are seeking
>>>> to have clarified neither provides any such list of considerations, nor
>>>> does it designate who the decisional entity would be.
>>>>
>>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>>> Suite 1050
>>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>>>
>>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Nigel
>>>> Roberts
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:01 PM
>>>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with your example. however valid the rest of your comment.
>>>>
>>>> Traditionally, the auxilary "shall" is used for the future tense with
>>>> the first-person pronouns I and We. "Will" is used with the
>>>> first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) to express
>>>> determination not merely futurity.
>>>>
>>>> The opposite is true for second- and third-person pronouns: with these
>>>> "will" is used in the future tense, and "shall" is used only when we wish
>>>> to express determination or to emphasize certainty.
>>>>
>>>> So both of your examples are right, not just one; and they bear subtly
>>>> different meanings . . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "If you come late I WILL NOT wait for you"
>>>>
>>>> means :-
>>>>
>>>> "I have no desire to wait for you if you are late. I am determined in
>>>> that view" (the conclusion that "you should not expect to see me
>>>> there"
>>>> is merely implicit)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However . . .
>>>>
>>>> "If you come late I SHALL NOT wait for you" means literally and
>>>> EXPLICITLY simply that :-
>>>>
>>>> "Do not expect to see me there if you arrive late".
>>>>
>>>> This form says nothing about my feelings or desires explicitly (though
>>>> you might imply this, it is not certain at all; and my reasons for not
>>>> being there if your are late may be external unrelated to my desires,
>>>> wishes or intentions.).
>>>>
>>>> 'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
>>>> imply mandatoriness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nigel
>>>>
>>>> (PS: WILL NOT and SHALL NOT may be replaced with WON'T and SHAN'T)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Example
>>>>
>>>> If you come late I *will*not wait for you
>>>>
>>>> It is never said
>>>>
>>>> If you come late I *shal*l not wait for you
>>>>
>>>> This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/25/16
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/1e7528ad/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list