<html>
<head>
<!-- Template generated by Exclaimer Mail Disclaimers on 10:09:42 Thursday, 12 May 2016 -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">P.a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2Table {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2"></p>
<div>The Recommendation does not currently say "remove." If that is what CCWG wants, then the Recommendation should say so. We are seeking clarity about what the CCWG recommendation is.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Good (www.good.com)<br>
<strong>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
</strong>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Andrew Sullivan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 12, 2016 09:58:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gregory, Holly<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; 'ICANN@adlercolvin.com'; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi,<br>
<br>
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:<br>
<br>
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is<br>
the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our<br>
May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment<br>
letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups<br>
most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections<br>
(B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering<br>
language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final<br>
determination should be made as to whether those documents should<br>
be included in the grandfathering provision.”<br>
<br>
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the<br>
mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal.<br>
There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the<br>
subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why<br>
the drafters do not understand this.<br>
<br>
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the<br>
Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The<br>
task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it.<br>
Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant<br>
law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text.<br>
The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all<br>
legitimacy of this process will be lost.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<br>
</div>
</span></font>
<p></p>
<p class="a4c80dae-ab4a-4ee5-af37-4266486aaee2"> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</body>
</html>