[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:

    Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is
    the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our
    May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment
    letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups
    most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections
    (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering
    language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final
    determination should be made as to whether those documents should
    be included in the grandfathering provision.”

I don't get what's obscure here.  The CCWG's comment is that the
mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal.
There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the
subsection.  It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why
the drafters do not understand this.

The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over.  If the
Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later.  The
task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it.
Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant
law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text.
The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all
legitimacy of this process will be lost.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com