Dear all, I have checked Article 1 and Annex D( Article 3) of the draft Bylaws and found several inconsistencies between these verified parts and the corresponding Recommendations as contained in the Supplemental Proposal of CCWG as Approved in Marrakesh. In particular, the use of GAC Carve-Out has been misinterpreted and expanded over several parts of ANNEX D which were not called in the CCWG proposal. The language and terms used are very awkward and difficult to understand. I do not see any other way unless we ( CCWG) verify the draft paragraph by paragraph and compare them with the corresponding CCWG Recommendations to ensure that they are accurately reflecting the exact terms, language, objectives of those Recommendations I draw the f kind attention of all GAC colleagues that any method, ways, means other than proof reading and exact verification of the draft of Bylaws in a paragraph by paragraph manner would risk inaccuracy, misinterpretation, and difficulties in application. The famous GAC Carve-Out is a clear extension of that concept other than community objections, if raised in regard with inconsistency of the Board action in that regard with Bylaws. The threshold for that limited circumstances SEEMED to be misunderstood due to the fact that when the Board Recall is invoked through IRP the support of 3 SO/Ac, excluding GAC and the objection of not more than one SO/AC, excluding GAC is required. However, if IRP is not invoked the support of four SO/AC ,excluding GAC is required. The latter was not mentioned or referred to in the ANNEX D Any way we need to check draft paragraph by Paragraph and ensure their consistencies with the corresponding Recommendations Kavouss 2016-04-06 22:07 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Apr 2016 8:32 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
SO: At least for numbers, what ICANN does also exceeds just the IFO role
as it also approves/ratifies global policies et all.
MM: correct. But that is not what the current language says.
SO: Well it seem to me that the word "coordinates" encompasses all that and it further enumerates what the coordination entails in 1.1aiii(A and B) No?
I think if they indeed decides to sign with someone else in future, then the existing governing documents will need to be updated one way or the other anyway so I don't see it as a significant issue
MM: wrong. It will be extremely difficult to amend the articles and there is no reason to put in place now basic articles of incorporation that are not correct.
SO: But really Prof, you are saying this should be updated now because the article will be difficult to update in future even though what you propose will not be the status post transition (assuming the DUO sign with ICANN).
I just don't agree with the logic. Nevertheless, it's up to the respective communities to decide but I will just warn against too much modification of the intent our the proposal.
Regards
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community