[CCWG-ACCT] Bylaws Issue: Section 1.1(c)

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
I replied to the entire team
Sorry for misunderstanding
I do not agree with these change except the clear deletion to any document
which has not been yet agreed .
NO BLANKET AGREEMENT
Rergards
Kavouss


2016-05-01 19:02 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> You replied to my text as if you disagree with what I say when indeed we
> seem to be saying the same thing; which is that the current wording is
> sufficient.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 1 May 2016 17:58, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I do not believe to start drafting at this stage.,
>> " For avoidance of any doubt" and " for the sake of clarity"  are the
>> same and serve the porpoises equally.
>> As for the phrase " "*nothing in the preceding sentence should be
>> construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such
>> regulations.*"
>> It also is clear and I see no reason to use any other words or terms as
>> those suggested. It make the sentence more heavy in reading and opneded the
>> door for interpretation's
>> Pls keep the texts it they were without any changes
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>> 2016-05-01 14:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> On 29 Apr 2016 6:52 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "What does "such regulations" refer to?"
>>> >
>>> SO: It seem to refer to "governmentally authorized regulatory
>>> authority,..." which is appropriately noted in the section referenced.
>>>
>>> For clarity (better put, "for avoidance of doubt"), I don't think see
>>> any lack of clarity to resolve here.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> > If we want to save the last clause, things get more complicated.  It
>>> could be changed to say "nothing in the preceding sentence should be
>>> construed to suggest that it does have such authority."  Now it's clear
>>> that "such authority" refers to "governmentally authorized regulatory
>>> authority."  It could also be changed to say "nothing in the preceding
>>> sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to
>>> impose governmentally authorized regulations."  However, I'm not sure that
>>> either of these are particularly useful statements or add any clarity to
>>> the situation.  (The first is modestly more useful than the second.)
>>> >
>>> > I look forward to any thoughts.
>>> >
>>> > Greg
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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/20160501/8d7f8ce0/attachment.html>