[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear all,

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.

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.

The language and terms used are very awkward and difficult to understand.

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

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.

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.

The latter was not mentioned or referred to in the ANNEX D
Any way we need to check draft paragraph by Paragraph and ensure their
consistencies with the corresponding Recommendations
Kavouss

2016-04-06 22:07 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 6 Apr 2016 8:32 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > SO: At least for numbers, what ICANN does also exceeds just the IFO role
> as it also approves/ratifies global policies et all.
> >
> > MM: correct. But that is not what the current language says.
> >
> 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?
>
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160406/03b5a5b5/attachment.html>