[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Bylaws Issue: Section 1.1(c)

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
Sorry,what is meant by "any Governmentally Authorised Regulatory"????
Why there should be any reference to such authority?
The issue has nothing to do with such authority.
I strongly disagree with the proposal.
It is not a simple fixe but totally change the substance of the provisions
Regards
Kavousd


Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 May 2016, at 07:27, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That still doesn't work.  The preceding sentence does not refer to "regulations."  It refers to the act of regulating.  And the second sentence is not"buttressing" the first sentence; rather, it is attempting to alleviate confusion that might come from reading the first sentence alone (hence, the introductory phrase "For the avoidance of doubt").  Unfortunately, I don't think it succeeds, because the second sentence itself is not clear.
> 
> A simple test for whether "such" works as a substitute for "the" is to try putting the word "the" back in: 
> 
> ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that
> use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or
> provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of
> doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory
> authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to
> suggest that it does have authority to impose the regulations.
> 
> That doesn't hang together for me.  But we could go round and round on this.  I suggest we go back to counsel  -- who drafted this sentence in the first place -- and ask them to clarify it, since it was supposed to be "for the avoidance of doubt."
> 
> Looking at it now, I think another possibility would be just to remove the word "such" (or "the," in the example above), so the second sentence reads:  "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose regulations."  However, I still prefer to end the sentence after "authority," which I think removes all doubt without adding more.
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The statement says "...nothing in the *preceding* sentence...."
>> 
>> The word preceding refers to the sentence prior to that which talks about regulation and it's simply buttressing that first sentence by saying because "ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority" hence it does not have the authority to regulate (confirming the phrase used in the first sentence "ICANN shall not regulate...")
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>> 
>>> On 2 May 2016 12:14 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That doesn't work.  "Regulatory authority" is not the same as "regulations."  So "such regulations" can't refer back to "regulatory authority.'  It can only refer back to an earlier reference to some type of "regulations."
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>> On 29 Apr 2016 6:52 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > "What does "such regulations" refer to?"  
>>>> >
>>>> SO: It seem to refer to "governmentally authorized regulatory authority,..." which is appropriately noted in the section referenced.
>>>> 
>>>> For clarity (better put, "for avoidance of doubt"), I don't think see any lack of clarity to resolve here.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> > If we want to save the last clause, things get more complicated.  It could be changed to say "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have such authority."  Now it's clear that "such authority" refers to "governmentally authorized regulatory authority."  It could also be changed to say "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose governmentally authorized regulations."  However, I'm not sure that either of these are particularly useful statements or add any clarity to the situation.  (The first is modestly more useful than the second.)
>>>> >
>>>> > I look forward to any thoughts.
>>>> >
>>>> > Greg
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160502/2321b926/attachment.html>