[bylaws-coord] Corrected Bylaws document - 2 April 2016 version, as corrected on 7 April 2016

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Co-Chairs,

Dear Lawyers

Dear CCWG Colleagues

As I mentioned in the call on 5 and 7 April, a careful reading of the draft
Bylaws reveals that there is an intended or unintended proliferation of
“GAC CARVE-OUT” in many Articles of the main Bylaws as well as in Annex D

As you all know the so-called “GAC CARVE-OUT” «was introduced at almost
last calls

Irrespective of the degree of consensus on the “GAC CARVE-OUT” at CCWG,
Final version of Recommendations 1 &2   including /taking into account the
GAC Statements as contained in its Marrakesh Communique was agreed by
Chattering Organizations and subsequently by ICANN Board on March 11

In order to avoid any misinterpretation and avoid heavy drafting and also
avoiding  proliferation of “GAC CARVE-OUT” in many Articles of the main
Bylaws as well as in Annex D to the main draft, the most easiest and
accurate course of action would be:

   1.

   To cut and paste indent 3 of paragraph 08 of Recommendation 1 and
   paragraph 74( together with its indent) of Recommendation 2 in two specific
   legal text under the title of “GAC CARVE-OUT”
   2.

   Delete all references to   “GAC CARVE-OUT” in the draft

The above suggestion precisely captures the objectives and implementation
of “GAC CARVE-OUT” concept.

 It is recalled that the carve out was crafted to avoid the double Bites to
an apple knowing that ccNSO has and continue to have the privilege of that
double bites to apple

As for the GAC CARVE-OUT, the objective was merely and solely to enable the
community to challenge the Board’s diction on GAC consensuses advise on the
claim that such decision was inconsistent with ICANN bylaws including ICANN
Mission and nothing else.

During the debate it was reiterated by the author of “GAC CARVE-OUT” that
its occurrence probability is too low. It is surprising and even
inappropriate that for a case the probability of its occurrence is too low
one need a very heavily loaded provisions addressing that very low probable
circumstances.

This is a safe, wise, secure and confident approach which would totally
eliminate any intentional or unintentional misapplication of the concept.

It is to be noted that, the current draft with such proliferation of “GAC
CARVE-OUT” most of which based on misinterpretation and unilateral
expansion is totally unacceptable.

This is a very critical and delicate issue the unnecessary and unilateral
proliferation of which would be detrimental to GAC and would result in
another net win for private sector similar to the net win which was stated
in the testimony before the sub-committee of the House and thus would end
up

That GAC be loser for the second time ( in addition to that imposed to it
by ST18 and  initial Carve out concept

Regards

Kavouss

2016-04-07 23:02 GMT+02:00 Samantha Eisner via bylaws-coord <
bylaws-coord at icann.org>:

> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group -
>
> In our reviews of the document since circulation on Sunday, the attorneys
> have identified a set of items that were unintentionally omitted from the
> document as it was being prepared for distribution, as well as a few typos
> and minor corrections that needed to be addressed based upon the language
> agreed over the weekend.
>
> These updates do not address the items that have been under discussion in
> this group, the CWG or the CCWG.  We are all continuing to follow those
> discussions so that changes can be incorporated into a new version.
>
> The clean up items that are reflected in the attached track changes
> version are:
>
> a)    4.2(f) - inserted omitted provision
>
> b)    4.3(v) - typo
>
> c)    4.3(w) - typo
>
> d)    4.3(d) - busted section reference (no longer a provision for
> Community IRP  in Bylaws; assuming it should just be reference to Community
> IRP in Annex D)
>
> e)    4.3(e) - busted section reference (no longer a provision for
> Community IRP  in Bylaws; assuming it should just be reference to Community
> IRP in Annex D)
>
> f)     6.1(c) - typo
>
> g)    7.24 - inserted omitted provision
>
> h)    7.25 - inserted omitted provision
>
> i)      8.1 - typo
>
> j)      9.2(b) - typo  11.3(f) - typo
>
> k)    16.3 - inserted omitted provision
>
> l)      18.1 - updated section reference
>
> m)  18.9(a) words missing at the end "shall be the action of the IFRT."
>
> n)    19.1(c)(i) first sentence should be "An SCWG Creation Approval
> shall become effective..."
>
> o)    19.1(c)(ii) first sentence should be "An SCWG Creation Approval
> that has been rejected..."
>
> p)    19.7(a) words missing at the end "shall be the action of the SCWG."
>
> q)    25.2 – Fixed heading
>
> r)     27.2(c)(iii) - inserted omitted provision
>
> s)     Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(ii) – fixed threshold reference from “two
> or more” to “*three* or more”
>
> t)     Annex E, Section 1(e) - typo
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Sam Eisner
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160407/ee709091/attachment.html>