[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all
I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents
with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less
review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input
and finalisation.

I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more
time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our
feedback is absorbed and taken into account.

As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things
one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect.

Speak with you all soon!

cheers
Jordan


On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Milton,
>
> What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe
> it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge).
> The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies
> that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not
> what has been done in the past.
>
> I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not
> so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided
> to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the
> likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be
> missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue
> (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of
> the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal
> confirm draft before publishing for PC.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the
>> draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I
>> too optimistic about the process?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be
>> agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s).
>> The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking
>> at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts
>> of the document.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ *

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
jordan at internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160404/40a95451/attachment.html>