Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Apr 2016 2:48 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>  
> I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call today to change could to should in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions 6Apr16V2.pdf.
>  
> The goal is simply to make it crystal clear that the Board's decision to redact is subject to challenge, the perhaps sensitive sensitive nature of the information not precluding same.
>  
SO: There is a whole section for inspection rights, if there is any doubt that the redaction can be challenged, then i would think any clarification on that should be in Section 22.7 which addresses that issue. I think it's neater to avoid repeating stuffs in the bylaw as saying them again does not necessarily make it more binding than it already is.

That said, I have no strong opposition to what you've suggested.

Regards

> Thanks for considering,
>  
> Ed
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>