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

Mon Apr 4 11:05:52 UTC 2016

Dear Co-Chairs
I have started to study the draft .
I am on Section 2.2 of Article 1. There are changes and qualifiers and
additions in the areas that I compared Word by words.
However, the part started from "Powers" I do not find any precise trace in
the supplemental Proposal.
Moreover, making such accuracy check by one person takes a lot of time.
What is your Plan for such accuracy cks
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>:

> 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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ddcd682b/attachment-0001.html>