On 3 Mar 2017 21:30, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:52, avri doria wrote:
> While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have
> produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the
> places where we disagreed.

I don't think there is even such a thing as "representatives" of the
SOACs in the Empowered Community process, but even if there were, there
is a distinction between individuals and the entity.

SO: I think this was attempting to describe what the EC is in practice because they are indeed representatives of the respective SO/AC in the room(the entity)

I don't think we should encourage people to use the term Empowered
Community in a manner inconsistent with the formal Bylaws definition;
this will only generate more of the confusion your paper seeks to resolve.

SO: I will take an exception to this as I think interpreting legal text (bylaw) in a manner that makes easy understanding without losing the legal interpretation would achieve the intent of this process as well.

Regards

Kind Regards,

Malcolm

--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community