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