[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Jan 25 18:12:30 UTC 2016


In Court, in the UK, it's lawyers code ... here's one vademecum which 
might assist . .  .


"With respect"	= "Judge, this is wrong"

"With great respect" = "Judge, this is a real mistake. The Appeal court 
will not look on this with favour"

"With the greatest of respect" = "Only a pre-law would make such an 
egregious error as you are about to make"

"With the utmost respect" = "You are an idiot".



On 25/01/16 15:44, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Avri.
>
> I disagree with you that the term " with due respect " is an insult.
> Hundreds of time all top level people used that to say, while I fully
> respect you, nevertheless, I do not agree with you on this particular topic.
>
> This is a diplomatic language to avoid misinterpretation of grieving
> somebody
>
> I do not know what is the basis of your interpretation
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2016-01-25 16:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Dear Paul
>     Then that allegation against ICANN , decision should go trough all
>     steps of process.
>     I do not believe that an individual should simply make an allegation
>     to the Board, s decision without passing through an established
>     procedure otherwise tens of allegations called for every day .that
>     was not the objectives of IRP.Such inefficient course of action
>     would totally counterproductive and detriment to the healthy process
>     of ICANN works
>     Regards
>     Kavouss
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>      > On 25 Jan 2016, at 16:22, Paul Rosenzweig
>     <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>      >
>      > Dear Kavous
>      >
>      >
>      > If and only if the person materially being affected by the Board
>     decision
>      > makes a colorable allegation that the Board's actions are
>     inconsistent with
>      > the bylaws ....  Whether or not they are actually inconsistent is
>     for the
>      > IRP to decide, in the end ...
>      >
>      > Cheers
>      > Paul
>      >
>      > Paul Rosenzweig
>      > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>      > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>      > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>      > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>      > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>      > Link to my PGP Key
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>     <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
>      > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:55 AM
>      > To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
>      > Cc: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>;
>     Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>;
>      > ICANN <ICANN at adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>;
>     Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>;
>      > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>      > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>;
>     <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>      > <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>; Sidley
>     ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>     <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>;
>      > Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley at sidley.com
>     <mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>; Grapsas, Rebecca
>      > <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com <mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
>      > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1,
>     8, 9, 10, 11
>      >
>      > Dear Sir,
>      > Yes , if and only if the Board,s decision is INCONSISTENT with
>     or  in
>      > violation of Bylaws?!!!!
>      > Regards
>      > Kavouss
>      >
>      > Sent from my iPhone
>      >
>      >>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:48, Paul Rosenzweig
>      >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Dear Kavouss
>      >>
>      >> No IRP will review GAC advice.  But the community did agree
>      >> (overwhelmingly) that IRP review would apply to Board decisions in
>      >> response to GAC advice, which is, of course, exactly what
>     Malcolm posits
>      > ...
>      >>
>      >> Paul
>      >>
>      >> Paul Rosenzweig
>      >> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>      >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>      >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>      >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>      >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>      >> Link to my PGP Key
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> -----Original Message-----
>      >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>     <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
>      >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:45 AM
>      >> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>
>      >> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Paul Rosenzweig
>      >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>; ICANN
>      >> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>; Thomas
>     Rickert <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>;
>      >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>;
>     acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Sidley
>      >> ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>     <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>; Greeley, Amy E.
>      >> <AGreeley at sidley.com <mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>; Grapsas,
>     Rebecca <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com <mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
>      >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1,
>     8, 9,
>      >> 10, 11
>      >>
>      >> Dear All,
>      >> Perhaps people totally forgotten that NO IRP SHALL BE INVOKED BY THE
>      >> COMMUNITY.
>      >> FOR GAC ADVICE.
>      >> This has been discussed  and confirmed .pls refer ti WP 2 and CCWG
>      >> previous NOTES and REPORTS Regards Kavouss
>      >>
>      >> Sent from my iPhone
>      >>
>      >>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 10:57, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
>     <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>> On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
>      >>>> Paul,
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken
>     into account"
>      >>>> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect.
>      >>>
>      >>> I also agree that this would be a substantial change.
>      >>>
>      >>> To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not
>      >>> unlikely, scenario.
>      >>>
>      >>> The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has
>      >>> advised is not entirely clearly, and there is certainly
>     ambiguity as
>      >>> to how it might be implemented. The Board has then done
>     something. A
>      >>> materially affected party, unhappy with the Board's action and
>      >>> preferring an alternative that would take a more extreme view
>     of the
>      >>> GAC advice, challenges the action in the IRP. The Board takes the
>      >>> view that it has taken the GAC's advice into account and that
>     what it
>      >>> has done is reasonably consistent with the GAC advice; the
>      >>> complainant argues that the action was not consistent with it.
>      >>>
>      >>> If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to
>     allege
>      >>> that the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice,
>      >>> what is the consequence of that? It seems to vary according to
>     which
>      >>> standard we choose:
>      >>>
>      >>> - If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into
>      >>> account" GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did
>     do that:
>      >>> since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed
>      >>> (albeit
>      >>> incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably
>      >>> implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this
>     standard.
>      >>> The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into
>      >>> compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted
>      >>> inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The
>      >>> action, however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve
>      >>> cancelling the action, but might be found through supplementing the
>      >>> action with another.
>      >>>
>      >>> - If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act
>      >>> inconsistently" with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the
>     Board
>      >>> has acted inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action must
>      >>> be quashed, if it is possible to do so; failure to do so would
>      >>> consistute perpetuating the bylaws breach.
>      >>>
>      >>> This is a material change, that may significantly affect the
>     outcome.
>      >>>
>      >>> Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or
>     desirable. For
>      >>> that reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's
>     advice on
>      >>> this particular case.
>      >>>
>      >>> Kind Regards,
>      >>>
>      >>> Malcolm.
>      >>>
>      >>> --
>      >>>          Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>     <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>  Head of Public
>      >>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet
>     Exchange
>      >>> | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>      >>>
>      >>>               London Internet Exchange Ltd
>      >>>     Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>      >>>
>      >>>       Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>      >>>     Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> _______________________________________________
>      >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>      >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list