Hi all, So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 : As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii). Is that correct ? Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 À : Gregory, Holly Cc : ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Seun Ojedeji Objet : Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote: We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language. Sent with Good (www.good.com) _____ From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." A On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
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@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _____