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

Mon Apr 4 07:22:15 UTC 2016

Seun,

You seem to imply that the document we have circulated was not agreed on by 
all lawyers team, or that there would be disagreements. I believe this is 
based on an interpretation of the lawyer’s note, but I have absolutely no 
indication that this is the case. My understanding is that our legal team, 
due to the heavy drafting workload they have been involved in (including a 
lot of “holding the pen”), has not yet had time to get back to the report 
and review item by item that everything was ok. The “testing” has not yet 
occurred if you will.

We can certainly clarify that with our legal team.

Meanwhile, we are in agreement about the 2nd approach.

Best

Mathieu

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Seun 
Ojedeji
Envoyé : lundi 4 avril 2016 05:54
À : Jordan Carter
Cc : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 
2016 version

Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second 
approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger 
group be provided update as the development of the document continues just 
for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan).

However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that 
which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN 
legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does 
not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think 
there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team 
certifies a final draft document and publication for PC.

I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point 
again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily).

Regards
1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first 
shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is 
an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that 
gets forwarded to the larger group.
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

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 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>  (office) | +64-21-442-649 
<tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
 <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz | 
www.internetnz.nz

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________
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/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160404/8958ccd6/attachment.html>