<p dir="ltr">Hello,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Just a few minor comments:</p>
<p dir="ltr">- While removing "by consensus" from 6.2 is fine, I think replacing it with something like "by their decision making process" will better carry out the intent of Annex 1 line 37-38</p>
<p dir="ltr">- It may be good to do our homework to have clarity on issue 2 so the phrase "...It remains unclear whether they are required..." can be struck out in 2.3</p>
<p dir="ltr">- I think the following text should be removed from 8.3 "...ensure that there is no need that the FOI-HR be approved by all Chartering Organizations but rather..". The point is that approval based on the CCWG charter is required, that way any possible update on the charter will still be applicable, hence there is no need to lock in to a particular process. Locking in to the charter is better.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- I don't understand the intent of recommendation 9.3, since/if we could not relate this with our report in 9.2. Then I suggest we strike out item 9 and not put the board in an unnecessary confusion.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- I am not a lawyer, but I doubt removing the word " including" really address the issue raised in 7.2. I think replacing "including" with "however" may be better (again could be me just applying English and not legal English)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 6 May 2016 4:36 p.m., "Bernard Turcotte" <<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thank you</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Bernard Turcotte</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs</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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>