[CCWG-ACCT] Bylaws Issue: Section 1.1(c)

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All.
I am not convinced by the arguments oprovded by GRec
The structure of sentence is sufficiently clear
Regarads
Kavouss

2016-04-29 19:51 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> ​All,
>
> There is an issue with Section 1.1(c), which (while relatively minor)
> should be corrected.  (There may also be more significant issues, but I'm
> not going to go there.  I'm just dealing with the question of whether the
> Bylaws carry out the intent of the Proposal.)
>
> This section currently reads:
>
> ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services
> that
> use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services
> carry or
> provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of
> doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory
> authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to
> suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.
>
> There was a lot of discussion of this provision during the drafting
> process, and this particular formulation did not emerge until just before
> the document went out for public comment.​
>
> My concern is with the last clause of the last sentence: "*nothing in the
> preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have
> authority to impose such regulations.*"  The particular problem is the
> phrase "such regulations."  When lawyers use "such" like this, it replaces
> "the" when referring to a thing that's already been referred to by that
> term (or that term with adjectives). ("The door to the bedroom is 3 feet
> wide. ... Such door will remain open at all times.")  Here, however,
> there's been no prior reference to "regulations," so it's completely
> unclear what this is referring to.
>
> *The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence
> with "authority."  That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations"
> refer to?"  I support this fix.*
>
> If we want to save the last clause, things get more complicated.  It could
> be changed to say "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to
> suggest that it does have such authority."  Now it's clear that "such
> authority" refers to "governmentally authorized regulatory authority."  It
> could also be changed to say "nothing in the preceding sentence should be
> construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose governmentally
> authorized regulations."  However, I'm not sure that either of these are
> particularly useful statements or add any clarity to the situation.  (The
> first is modestly more useful than the second.)
>
> I look forward to any thoughts.
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160501/52b30433/attachment.html>