[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