[CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7

Wed Apr 13 10:17:06 UTC 2016

Every one should look in the mirror.
Arguing that the term" every reasonable " before "effort" is consistent with a gIven country,s Court is an invalid statement as there is no specific publication of those courts indicating that the use of such qualifier is an agreed terms by all courts of that country.
It may be a view of one judge on specific case under specific circumstances and thus totally
Inappropriate to generalise that .'
Dear Sir unfortunately you supporting an invalid argument .
Mr.Satan mustbring a valud evidence for what he ckamef.
Which Court?
On what case?
Under which circumstances?
How many times used?
When it was used?
Arasteh

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 22:37, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss,
>  
> It is hard to take you seriously since you have been spewing allegations of bad faith in this forum for quite some time, most recently with Greg Shatan today and yesterday. Perhaps you should look in the mirror a bit.
>  
> Brett
>  
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:17 PM
> To: Schaefer, Brett
> Cc: Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>  
> Opposing to valid argument is identical to opposing discussion
> .what was done last night is clear evidence  of opposing to a healthy discussion
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 12 Apr 2016, at 16:42, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss,
>  
> No one is opposed to discussion. Please read carefully before posting.
>  
> Brett
>  
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:35 AM
> To: Schaefer, Brett
> Cc: Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>  
> Oh wooo
> Somebody objects to a discussion?!!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:06, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 
> Co-chairs,
>  
> I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
>  
> The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal.
> It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal.
> The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
>  
> I am also opposed procedurally.
>  
> On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
>  
> Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
>  
> How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Brett
>  
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>  
> Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
>  
> Best
> Mathieu
>  
> De : bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord
> Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43
> À : bylaws-coord at icann.org
> Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran at icann.org); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos at icann.org)
> Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>  
> Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
>  
> Please see attached.  All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel.  Pdf versions to follow.
>  
> Rosemary and Holly
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160413/5646ea1f/attachment-0001.html>