[CCWG-ACCT] TR: CCWG Accountability comment

[Nigel Roberts]

Probably for the first time on the subject of our failed attempt to hold 
ICANN accountable to Human Rights standards, I agree with Thomas.

Not only is there 'no real difference', there is simply no difference.

In the phrase "Unless and until" the phrase "unless and" is entirely 
otiose and simply an example of the all-too-common, unnecessary and 
habitual use of rhetorical adnominatio by legal draughtsmen.


On 18/05/16 08:26, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Hi Niels,
> we had been advised by our law firms that there is no real legal
> difference between the two alternatives, which is why the comment has
> not made its way into the final version of the CCWG comment if memory
> does not fail me. If you still think this needs fixing, please do submit
> a comment to bring it to the attention of the drafting teams.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
> eco.de <http://eco.de>
>
>
> Am 17.05.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>:
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> Thanks for this. There is an issue related to the Human Rights bylaw,
>> which we have discussed and on which I think we reach agreement that has
>> not been addressed in the CCWG public comment. Namely the comment made
>> by Seth underneath, the exclusion of the text "unless and", about which
>> I thought we reached consensus.
>>
>> Since the CCWG comments have already been submitted, how would you
>> advice to proceed on this matter?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 07:45 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> Note for all: This does not address the inclusion of "unless and" in
>>> Section 27.3 (a), which makes the FOI on HR conditional and does not
>>> reflect the CCWG Report which only says the Core Value is not in force
>>> "until" the FOI is developed.  Already said this, with some support.
>>> Repeating for reference once again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Mathieu Weill
>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the comment posted to the public comment forum on the Draft
>>>> Icann Bylaws on our behalf. Thanks to all of you for contributing to
>>>> this
>>>> effort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill at afnic.fr]
>>>> Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2016 18:19
>>>> À : 'comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16 at icann.org>'
>>>> Objet : CCWG Accountability comment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please find enclosed the comment submitted on behalf of the Cross
>>>> Community
>>>> Working Group en Enhancing Icann’s Accountability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez and Mathieu Weill
>>>>
>>>> Co-chairs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>>
>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>