[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2

['Andrew Sullivan']

Thanks.  FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."

A

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
> Dear All:
> 
> I have to second Holly's response here.  I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove".  If it had, we would not have asked for clarification.  What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.  
> 
> To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.  
> 
> Rosemary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM
> To: Holly Gregory
> Cc: 'leonfelipe at sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas at rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community at icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord at icann.org'
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
> 
>     Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is
>     the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our
>     May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment
>     letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups
>     most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections
>     (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering
>     language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final
>     determination should be made as to whether those documents should
>     be included in the grandfathering provision.”
> 
> I don't get what's obscure here.  The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal.
> There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection.  It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
> 
> The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over.  If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later.  The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it.
> Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text.
> The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com