<div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Dear all,</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">I have
checked Article 1 and Annex D( Article 3) of the draft Bylaws and found several
inconsistencies between these verified parts and the corresponding
Recommendations as contained in the Supplemental Proposal of CCWG as Approved
in Marrakesh.</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">In particular,
the use of GAC Carve-Out has been misinterpreted and expanded over several
parts of ANNEX D which were not called in the CCWG proposal.</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">The language
and terms used are very awkward and difficult to understand.</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">I do not see
any other way unless we ( CCWG) verify the draft paragraph by paragraph and
compare them with the corresponding CCWG Recommendations to ensure that they
are accurately reflecting the exact terms, language, objectives of those
Recommendations</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">I draw the f
kind attention of all GAC colleagues that any method, ways, means other than
proof reading and exact verification of the draft of Bylaws in a paragraph by
paragraph manner would risk inaccuracy, misinterpretation, and difficulties in
application. The famous GAC Carve-Out is a clear extension of that concept
other than community objections, if raised in regard with inconsistency of the
Board action in that regard with Bylaws.</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">The threshold
for that limited circumstances SEEMED to be misunderstood due to the fact that
when the Board Recall is invoked through IRP the support of 3 SO/Ac, excluding GAC
and the objection of not more than one SO/AC, excluding GAC is required.
However, if IRP is not invoked the support of four SO/AC ,excluding GAC is
required.</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">The latter
was not mentioned or referred to in the ANNEX D</span></p><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Any way we need to check draft
paragraph by Paragraph and ensure their consistencies with the corresponding
Recommendations </span></div><div><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Kavouss </span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-06 22:07 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr"><span>Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br></span><span>
On 6 Apr 2016 8:32 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> SO: At least for numbers, what ICANN does also exceeds just the IFO role as it also approves/ratifies global policies et all.<br>
><br>
> MM: correct. But that is not what the current language says.<br>
><br></span>
SO: Well it seem to me that the word "coordinates" encompasses all that and it further enumerates what the coordination entails in 1.1aiii(A and B) No?</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>> I think if they indeed decides to sign with someone else in future, then the existing governing documents will need to be updated one way or the other anyway so I don't see it as a significant issue<br>
><br>
> MM: wrong. It will be extremely difficult to amend the articles and there is no reason to put in place now basic articles of incorporation that are not correct.<br>
><br></span>
SO: But really Prof, you are saying this should be updated now because the article will be difficult to update in future even though what you propose will not be the status post transition (assuming the DUO sign with ICANN).</p>
<p dir="ltr">I just don't agree with the logic. Nevertheless, it's up to the respective communities to decide but I will just warn against too much modification of the intent our the proposal.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<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>