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

Fri May 13 12:05:30 UTC 2016

Right!

Cheers!

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence
> at the end of item 2.3 :
>
>
>
> As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C,
> D and  E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii).
>
>
>
> Is that correct ?
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] *De la part de* Greg Shatan
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28
> *À :* Gregory, Holly
> *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Sidley
> ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org; bylaws-coord at icann.org; Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Objet :* Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re
> CCWG Comment - Version 2
>
>
>
> I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment,
> which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's
> decisions into the draft comment.  That's why we have an iterative process
> of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the
> words are first being put on the "page" (screen).  It would be a mistake to
> take the draft comment as gospel.  This is not to impugn the efforts of
> those involved.  We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you
> have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were
> in a relaxed work mode.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
> wrote:
>
> We reiterate:  if the instruction is to remove the language then the
> recommendation should be to remove the language.
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM
> *To:* Andrew Sullivan
> *Cc:* Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org;
> bylaws-coord at icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org; ICANN-Adler
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment
> - Version 2
>
>
>
> +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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ------------------------------
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160513/6feca322/attachment.html>