<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Good (<a href="http://www.good.com" target="_blank">www.good.com</a>)<br>
<strong></strong></p>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Sullivan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; <a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; ICANN-Adler<div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2<br>
</div></div></font><div><div class="h5"><br>
<div></div>
<div>
<p dir="ltr">+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team.
</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 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:<br>
> Dear All:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Rosemary<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM<br>
> To: Holly Gregory<br>
> Cc: '<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; '<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>'; ICANN-Adler; '<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>';
Sidley ICANN CCWG; '<a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>'; '<a href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>'<br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2<br>
><br>
> 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 mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal.<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
> Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text.<br>
> The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><p>****************************************************************************************************<span class=""><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>
****************************************************************************************************</span></p>
</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><br></div>