[CCWG-ACCT] Issue Item 3

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Apr 2016 2:48 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call
today to change could to should in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to
Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions
6Apr16V2.pdf.
>
> The goal is simply to make it crystal clear that the Board's decision to
redact is subject to challenge, the perhaps sensitive sensitive nature
of the information not precluding same.
>
SO: There is a whole section for inspection rights, if there is any doubt
that the redaction can be challenged, then i would think any clarification
on that should be in Section 22.7 which addresses that issue. I think it's
neater to avoid repeating stuffs in the bylaw as saying them again does not
necessarily make it more binding than it already is.

That said, I have no strong opposition to what you've suggested.

Regards

> Thanks for considering,
>
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160407/762e4f0c/attachment.html>