<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 7 Apr 2016 2:48 p.m., "Edward Morris" <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi everybody,<br>
> <br>
> I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call today to change could to should in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions 6Apr16V2.pdf.<br>
> <br>
> The goal is simply to make it crystal clear that the Board's decision to redact is subject to challenge, the perhaps sensitive sensitive nature of the information not precluding same.<br>
> <br>
SO: There is a whole section for inspection rights, if there is any doubt that the redaction can be challenged, then i would think any clarification on that should be in Section 22.7 which addresses that issue. I think it's neater to avoid repeating stuffs in the bylaw as saying them again does not necessarily make it more binding than it already is.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, I have no strong opposition to what you've suggested.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> Thanks for considering,<br>
> <br>
> Ed<br>
> <br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
</p>