[NCUC-EC] ICANN staff comments on the bylaws

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi

I agree w/ taking this step by step.
If we don't accept the suggestion, then we don't. Right?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:47 AM, hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
> As far as I understood from our meeting with Rob at the intersessional,
> these comments aren't binding. So I would second Farzaneh in going step by
> step and see how we can answer this.
>
> 2017-02-18 14:34 GMT-05:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>
>> The process is ICANN staff review and make suggestions.  We dont even have
>> to consider these suggestions. But it's better to understand them and give a
>> reason why we do not accept some of the comments. As to the nature of
>> suggestions, there is not much of a mandate . They just provide comments
>> including editorial and substative. I suggest doing this:we see which
>> editorial suggestions we can accept, we point out to the comments that we
>> cannot accept and we give our reasons why. Then we have a meeting with staff
>> and tell them. Then send to Board. Remember that this will go to board. It
>> makes it much easier when we provide reason why we don't accept the staff
>> suggestions.
>>
>> There is an alternative which is a bit extreme. We can just adopt the
>> bylaws. Board will look at them though and might tell us not to adopt before
>> changing it. But I don't feel extreme today.
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2017 13:19, "Tatiana Tropina" <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Farzaneh and all.
>>> I don't think we should agree to get the meeting where the comments are
>>> "explained" to us. While am in general very cooperative, I think accepting
>>> the offer to "explain" why someone would unilaterally rewrite our mission
>>> and the membership rules is already too much. We have to send it back with
>>> the note that the staff was supposed to do copy-editing of the text for the
>>> purpose of consistency, not rewriting the provisions that constituency came
>>> up with.
>>> Farzy and I are involved in the AC/SO accountability WS2 and I was
>>> working on membership data capture there. Yes!!! - other constituencies (BC,
>>> IPC) do have membership, eligibility criteria and process of becoming a
>>> member. Another argument why we shall not accept the document and just send
>>> it back with a polite note that ICANN consultant overstepped the mandate
>>> with regard to what can be edited.
>>> Warm regards
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 February 2017 at 04:37, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> EC,
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached ICANN staff comments on NCUC bylaws. I will arrange
>>>> a meeting with Rob and staff but before doing that we need to go through the
>>>> comments. We can do that within two weeks and then have a meeting with him
>>>> and staff to explain the comments to us. Then we will discuss with Rob and
>>>> staff and then discuss with our members, finalize and ask Rob to send it to
>>>> Board.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>