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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
I strongly opposed to the use of " Governmental authority" in this
provisions
We are inventing new term .new idea ,new thought
NO. I  DISAGREE
Kavouss

2016-05-02 5:38 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> I strongly object to the term" Governmental Regulatory Authority" proposed
> by some people,
> This is a new invention and coming out of nowhere .
> The initial text as contained in the CCWG Supplemental Proposal of 23 Feb.
> 2016 is to be used .
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-05-02 1:14 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> That doesn't work.  "Regulatory authority" is not the same as
>> "regulations."  So "such regulations" can't refer back to "regulatory
>> authority.'  It can only refer back to an earlier reference to some type of
>> "regulations."
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> On 29 Apr 2016 6:52 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "What does "such regulations" refer to?"
>>> >
>>> SO: It seem to refer to "governmentally authorized regulatory
>>> authority,..." which is appropriately noted in the section referenced.
>>>
>>> For clarity (better put, "for avoidance of doubt"), I don't think see
>>> any lack of clarity to resolve here.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160502/1713d29e/attachment.html>