[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

[Mueller, Milton L]

Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws?


“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

Bernard
One quick comment.
I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity.


Under 2.2 you say:



“…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”



I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say:



“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”

--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

All,

As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.

This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.

As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response
beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.

Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to
facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).

Thank you

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160506/b44b0396/attachment-0001.html>