On 07/04/2026 03:21, Justine Chew
wrote:
1.
Assuming proposed s.27(b)(iii) is adopted down the line, then a
decision to extend the pause period is arguably, not an "Approval
Action relates to an Articles Amendment" because it does not amend
the said article (since the article is already provided for). EC
only comes into action when amending an article or if the text in
in s.27(b)(iii) (if adopted) were proposed to be amended.
The overall process relates to a "Standard Bylaws Amendment". You
are right that if you make the case that this is not a "Bylaws
Amendment" per-se, then it falls outside the jurisdiction of the
Empowered Community Process, but IMHO this is playing with the
process to evade a formal EC process. The result at the end of this
exercise is indeed a Bylaws Amendment, even though "temporary" and I
use quotes around "temporary" when I remember how many things
starting as "temporary" end up lasting longer than expected.
2. The EC only has 5 participants, whereas all 7 SOACs were
involved in the route we are taking to insert a pause period for
Specific Reviews, so it is fair that the 7 SOACs be involved in
making a decision whether to extend the pause period or not.
The big difference between "a majority of the 7" and "the Empowered
Community" is that in the Empowered Community, one member can stop
the whole process by objecting. In the "majority of the 7" there is
no consequence relating to objections.
Kindest regards,
Olivier