[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2

[Seun Ojedeji]

+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the
legal team.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Thanks.  FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
>
> A
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
> > Dear All:
> >
> > I have to second Holly's response here.  I, too, read the recommendation
> in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say
> "remove".  If it had, we would not have asked for clarification.  What we
> did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the
> recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
> >
> > To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items
> of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees
> should be done.
> >
> > Rosemary
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM
> > To: Holly Gregory
> > Cc: 'leonfelipe at sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas at rickert.net';
> ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community at icann.org'; Sidley ICANN
> CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord at icann.org'
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment -
> Version 2
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
> >
> >     Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is
> >     the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our
> >     May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment
> >     letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups
> >     most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections
> >     (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering
> >     language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final
> >     determination should be made as to whether those documents should
> >     be included in the grandfathering provision.”
> >
> > I don't get what's obscure here.  The CCWG's comment is that the
> mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal.
> > There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the
> subsection.  It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the
> drafters do not understand this.
> >
> > The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over.  If the
> Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later.  The task
> is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it.
> > Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law
> is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text.
> > The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all
> legitimacy of this process will be lost.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160512/f2b46e44/attachment.html>