The reminder (Avri claims it is only a reminder) is very important IMO.

I can not attest to have experience in treaty/bylaws/whatever 
negotiations, but i do have a small experience with collective 
bargaining labor agreements (and follow ups of real life impacts of such 
small changes in CLAs) and i can assure you that reminders and 
redundancies (or lack thereof) are righfully so a major area of 
contention. Rightfully so because you can be certain that parties 
behaviors post CBA will be to go ahead and act as if the absence of 
reminder is a permission to go ahead and you are thus buying yourself a 
conflict in the future.

I'm thinking this is even more the case in bargaining such that you guys 
are involved into. Also, those that say "deal breaker" all the time must 
be met with absolute resolve. To force them to "deal break" on that 
seemingly tiny issue is the best course of action. But you guys are 
dealing with multiple players and interests so you have exponentially 
more fun ;)

My .02

Nicolas

On 2015-08-04 11:02 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> There was considerable pushback from the GNSO on this, but the GAC 
> played the "we'll reject the plan if you don't give us what we want" 
> card and too many in the GNSO are desperate for a "transition" at any 
> costs and were afraid of anything slowing down the process.  So those 
> who were willing to say "this is a deal-breaker for us" could pretty 
> much get what they wanted.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>> I repeat what I said to Avri. ICANN’s mission and core values speak 
>> to, and are supposed to bind, ICANN – not GAC. By altering the 
>> language in the way you did, you let ICANN off the hook, not GAC.
>> --MM
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf 
>> Of*Edward Morris
>> *Sent:*Monday, August 3, 2015 8:15 PM
>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:*Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>> The government's were very sensitive about any encroachment upon 
>> their defined GAC territory or any attempt to interfere with their 
>> independence, the debate over stress test 18 (consensus within GAC) 
>> being the principal example. My recollection is that Spain and Brazil 
>> were the most vocal demanding the changes you mention, Milton. As 
>> Avri has conveyed, governments felt it was the Board's responsibility 
>> to determine compliance with the Bylaws, not theirs.
>> Ed
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 12:27 AM
>> *To*:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject*: Re: CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>> Hi,
>>
>> The point was that the Board is responsible for making sure the advice
>> it accepts is consistent with the bylaws. GAC does not accept that
>> responsibility. Then again, I know of no other ACSO that is making that
>> decsion of whether their recommendations or advice are consistent with
>> the bylaws.. It is up to the Board, and the the IRP to decide whether
>> something is consistent with the bylaws. That is their job.
>>
>> As for whether it is a bad as it looks to you, probably not.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 03-Aug-15 19:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> >
>> > Robin and other fellow NCSG-ers:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regarding human rights, I have been going through the CCWG report and
>> > found something very disturbing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On page 33, which is part of the section on “Principles” I noticed a
>> > big loophole opening up in the attempt to constrain ICANN’s actions by
>> > defining a limited mission. Paragraph 224 has been modified in a way
>> > that makes it LESS restrictive than before. It says that ICANN must
>> > take into account advice of governments, and the former language about
>> > how the advice must be consistent with its bylaws and its fundamental
>> > commitments and core values has been struck out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Can anyone who was in Paris tell me how this happened and whether it
>> > really is as bad as it looks?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
>> > Of *Robin Gross
>> > *Sent:* Monday, August 3, 2015 5:06 PM
>> > *To:*[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The CCWG-Accountability report is out:
>> >
>> >http://bit.ly/1IUzwJB<http://t.co/5nYZyX5nII>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > One important and positive recommendation is the report is that ICANN
>> > include a commitment to human rights in its bylaws. But there's a lot
>> > of other significant changes in there, so please read the report.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > NCSG will have a webinar on 5 August to go over this report and have
>> > any discussion on it participants want.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The comment period is now for 40 days.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Robin
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>