<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Co-Chairs</div><div>I have started to study the draft .</div><div>I am on Section 2.2 of Article 1. There are changes and qualifiers and additions in the areas that I compared Word by words.</div><div>However, the part started from "Powers" I do not find any precise trace in the supplemental Proposal.</div><div>Moreover, making such accuracy check by one person takes a lot of time.</div><div>What is your Plan for such accuracy cks</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" vlink="purple" link="blue"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Seun, <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">You seem to imply that the document we have circulated was not agreed on by all lawyers team, or that there would be disagreements. I believe this is based on an interpretation of the lawyer’s note, but I have absolutely no indication that this is the case. My understanding is that our legal team, due to the heavy drafting workload they have been involved in (including a lot of “holding the pen”), has not yet had time to get back to the report and review item by item that everything was ok. The “testing” has not yet occurred if you will. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">We can certainly clarify that with our legal team. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Meanwhile, we are in agreement about the 2<sup>nd</sup> approach. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Best<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Mathieu<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">De :</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>De la part de</b> Seun Ojedeji<br><b>Envoyé :</b> lundi 4 avril 2016 05:54<br><b>À :</b> Jordan Carter<br><b>Cc :</b> Accountability Cross Community<br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p>Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger group be provided update as the development of the document continues just for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan). <u></u><u></u></p><p>However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team certifies a final draft document and publication for PC.<u></u><u></u></p><p>I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily). <u></u><u></u></p><p>Regards<br>1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that gets forwarded to the larger group.<br>Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi all<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Speak with you all soon!<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">cheers<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Jordan<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><p>Hello Milton,<u></u><u></u></p><p>What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.<u></u><u></u></p><p>I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.<u></u><u></u></p><p>Regards<u></u><u></u></p><p>Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-3975649235681800596_m_-5977808677680109023_m_175366109164748"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"> </span></a><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor blue;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt"><p><span lang="EN-US">I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ </b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter <br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> | <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><i>A better world through a better Internet</i><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>