[CCWG-ACCT] Review of Articles 1-10 of the Draft Bylaws

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Greg
Thank you very much for your kind
Reply and  for the clarifications 
/explanations provided.
My request was to have clear 
Description of these colour 
references. 
If legal team drafter confirm you
 you described then it would be 
difficult to identify the source /
origin of the text and its compliance 
With the supplemental proposal
,s text or its concept.
In other words we have no means 
to verify the accuracy of the text
 with concept or the text in the
CCWG PROPOSAL
Regards
Kavousd

 
 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Apr 2016, at 00:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss,
> 
> Please allow me to provide some insight, since I'm familiar with comparison ("redlining") software from my day job.
> 
> Generically, red text is "new text."  In this case, it consists of the new Bylaws text drafted by the Bylaws drafting team, based on the Supplemental Proposal.  The "draft bylaws" in the Supplemental Proposal were never intended to be definitive text to be "cut and pasted" into the Bylaws.  Rather, any such "draft bylaws" text was intended to be used along with descriptive and conceptual discussions of potential Bylaws text, "notes to drafters," and elements of the Supplemental Proposal that required Bylaws revisions in order to implement them (whether or not accompanied by "draft bylaws" text, etc.).
> 
> Green text is "moved text." Generically, this consists of existing text that was moved by the drafters from a different place in the document. This can be useful when sections of a document are re-ordered.  Unfortunately, in my experience, these programs do a fairly poor job of picking up moved text. The redlining programs often pick up some new text that is the same as deleted text and deem that to be "moved text," which is of no use to the reader.  Conversely, the program will often fail to pick up moved text if it has been moved too far within a large document, and will show re-ordered sections as new text when they are not new.  In my personal preferences for comparison software, I "uncheck the box" for "show moved text," for the reasons set forth above.
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> Gregory S. Shatan | Partner
> McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
> 
> 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
> T: 212-609-6873
> F: 212-416-7613
> gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com  
> 
> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK 
> EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
>  
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Lawyers,
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>> I have studies the above  and wish to raise following questions
>> 1. In the redline texts I found many colours
>> Black
>> Blue
>> Red
>> Green
>> Black    I understand the Black colour is the initial texts of the current Bylaws
>> Blue      I understand the Blue colour IS USED FOR RENUMBERING OF aRTICLES
>> Red       I understand Red colour is used when new texts are added but where these texts 
>> Are they  come from the Supplemental Proposal ? My verification reveals that not all texts coming from Supplemental Proposal as there are red texts which have been added by the team. My question is how one could distinguish those texts directly emanated from Supplemental Proposal from those added by the team
>> Green   from where the green texts come from
>> I have also seen some new terms, words that were not discussed any where 
>> Who has added these terms ?
>> I have not been able to highlight all these in a more distinctable way but I have highlighted then with bigger font 18-20
>> Please kindly review that and reply to my questions
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160411/eebe5278/attachment-0001.html>