Thanks for sharing, Manju (and sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my
question)! I think that the Council's answer is precise and straight to the
point, so I agree with you that we don't need to elaborate any further
comment about it.
Cordially,
*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.sistemafiep.org.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR
<https://www.gedai.com.br/> Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Board Member @ CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.
Em seg., 8 de abr. de 2024 às 00:11, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <[log in to unmask]>
escreveu:
> Hi Pedro and all,
>
> Apologies in advance if I misunderstood your question. If you're talking
> about the ATRT4, I believe there were no objections to delaying it, and the
> Council will send the request to delay the review representing the whole
> GNSO. So no actions needed from NCSG on this front.
>
> Regarding the proposed Bylaw change by the Board, it appeared that all
> SG/Cs were aligned in disagreeing the proposed change. The Council has
> agreed to send a response indicating objections on behalf of GNSO. You can
> find the draft response here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q4xz1BZJenFuJVEEBzLxgK7vSWQJZkMmHO8AngKGsSg/edit
>
> In this case, NCSG could choose if it wants to add on to Council's
> response with its own objection as some constituencies plan to do. We can
> also be happy with the Council response and not do anything extra. I
> personally don't feel exceptionally strong about this issue and will opt
> for the latter, but it's my personal preference. If others feel strongly
> about this and would like to draft an NCSG response to reinforce the
> message, that could be a good opportunity, too.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Manju
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 6:48 AM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Considering the deadline is approaching (15 April), we will be joining
>> the GNSO-wide response then (supposing it will be against the proposal),
>> right? If not, I'd be up to write a Public Comment against the review,
>> with others who are also interested.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.sistemafiep.org.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR
>> <https://www.gedai.com.br/> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Board Member @ CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC BR
>> <https://isoc.org.br/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em sex., 29 de mar. de 2024 às 22:57, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>> [log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I personally support the RrSG position on the bylaws change, with the
>>> rational that the proposed scope is too broad. We also don't want to give
>>> powers to informal mechanisms like CCWG which might potentially create
>>> loopholes that bypass formal decision participants.
>>>
>>> Moreover, the comment from IPC that the Bylaws adopted after the
>>> Transition have largely remained fit for purpose and that this is the
>>> first time it is being proposed to disapply the accountability mechanisms
>>> for a specific set of decisions, to me makes this an edge case.
>>>
>>> I don't believe we need to update the bylaws to address edge cases.
>>>
>>> Warmly,
>>> Tomslin
>>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024, 09:30 Pedro de Perdigão Lana, <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Have we followed up with a position on this topic? Are we joining the
>>>> GNSO answer?
>>>>
>>>> Cordially,
>>>>
>>>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>>>> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.sistemafiep.org.br/>, Pesquisador
>>>> (GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
>>>> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
>>>> Membro da Coordenação - CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC
>>>> BR <https://isoc.org.br/> e IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
>>>> Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida
>>>> por engano, favor responder informando o erro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Em sex., 22 de mar. de 2024 às 09:54, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pedro,
>>>>>
>>>>> IPC's is still forming their position on the Bylaws amendment issue.
>>>>> See below:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Greg and Council:*
>>>>>
>>>>> * The IPC is still deciding on the bylaw amendment issue. *
>>>>>
>>>>> * With respect to ATRT 4, the IPC supports a deferral. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Thanks*,
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of arguments FOR broadening the scope of the Bylaws change
>>>>> from other communities, I personally haven't heard any except for those
>>>>> offered by the Board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmly,
>>>>> Tomslin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 23:06, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Manju, I couldn't find the IPC position in the previous messages -
>>>>>> could you tell us what they are saying? In addition, does any SG/C already
>>>>>> present an argument for amending the bylaws to make them "more flexible" in
>>>>>> this topic? If yes, what was this argument? (sorry if this was already
>>>>>> discussed here or in the wrap-up council meeting, I can't remember what was
>>>>>> debated on this topic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems like a very sensitive issue, considering accountability
>>>>>> mechanisms have, by their nature, a crucial anti-circumstantial-majorities
>>>>>> finality - and the risk this represents to non-commercial also seems
>>>>>> substantially larger than to other SG/Cs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>>>>>> Lawyer <https://www.sistemafiep.org.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR
>>>>>> <https://www.gedai.com.br/> Researcher
>>>>>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>>>>>> Board Member @ CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC BR
>>>>>> <https://isoc.org.br/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
>>>>>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If
>>>>>> received by mistake, please reply informing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Em sex., 22 de mar. de 2024 às 01:40, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi NCSG,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to bring this to your attention and welcome opinions on
>>>>>>> NCSG's position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you all remember the Board passing the resolution in
>>>>>>> ICANN78 regarding Auction Proceeds, which is now known as the Grant
>>>>>>> Program. In its resolution, the Board attempted to contract around the
>>>>>>> fundamental accountability mechanisms found in the ICANN bylaws despite its
>>>>>>> approval of the CCWG on Auction Proceeds' recommendations to amend the
>>>>>>> Bylaw years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The resolution faced backlash from the community, after which the
>>>>>>> Board put forward the proposal of a broadening amendment of the Bylaw. This
>>>>>>> proposal is currently seeking public comment at
>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GNSO Council discussed in ICANN79 whether to submit a Council
>>>>>>> response to this public proceeding. It was agreed to first understand each
>>>>>>> SG/Cs position and see if the positions are unified before deciding whether
>>>>>>> to submit the Council response. As you can see from below, both RrSG and
>>>>>>> IPC have shared their positions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Action Item for NCSG*:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Formulate an NCSG position and see if we want to join a GNSO-wide
>>>>>>> responseby 26 March.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Manju
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>> From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:33 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a follow up on the below email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *RE: the public comment on the bylaw amendment:*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leadership has not received feedback on any SG/C position. However,
>>>>>>> I can share the tentative RrSG position: the RrSG does not support
>>>>>>> broadening the original scope of the bylaws amendment beyond that
>>>>>>> contemplated in recommendation 7 of the CCWG AP (i.e. limiting removal of
>>>>>>> the accountability mechanisms just for the auction grant program). Among
>>>>>>> other things, the RrSG is concerned that this broadened scope vests undue
>>>>>>> power in CCWGs to disallow accountability mechanisms going forward by
>>>>>>> removing the community safeguard afforded by following a formal bylaws
>>>>>>> amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that Council would need a unified position to submit a public
>>>>>>> comment, I invite councilors to indicate whether their SG’s position may
>>>>>>> align with the RrSG’s position. Please provide feedback by 26 March to
>>>>>>> leave time to draft a comment. If not, I encourage SG’s to submit their own
>>>>>>> public comments (Council's role as a member of the Empowered Community is
>>>>>>> not strictly relevant at this stage -- a response is not strictly necessary
>>>>>>> now)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *RE: ATRT4*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note any objections to supporting a deferral of ATRT4. If
>>>>>>> there are none, a short letter will be sent by Council Leadership
>>>>>>> supporting a deferral at EOD 22 March.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* DiBiase, Gregory
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:02 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Open Items from ICANN 79
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are sending this “open items” email because several items require
>>>>>>> attention before our next scheduled meeting on April 18. Please see the
>>>>>>> action items listed below each issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *CCWG Auction Proceeds; Public Comment on Bylaw Amendment*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deadline: 15 April 2024
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material:
>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Action Item: Designate Councilor to solicit feedback from your SG on
>>>>>>> whether they support the proposed amendment and help draft public comment
>>>>>>> from Council. We plan to submit a comment if we can reach a unified a
>>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *ATRT 4*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deadline: 22 March 2024
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material: (letter from Theresa attached)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary: Given the number of items still in progress from ATRT3
>>>>>>> (pilot holistic review, CCOICI, actual holistic review), ICANN is asking
>>>>>>> for feedback on whether ARTRT 4 can be deferred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Action Item: Consult with your SGs to determine if there are any
>>>>>>> objections to supporting a deferral of ATRT4. If there are none, I think a
>>>>>>> relatively short letter can be sent by Council Leadership supporting a
>>>>>>> deferral.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Small Team Guidelines*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deadline: 18 April Council Meeting (but deadline can be moved if
>>>>>>> more discussion is warranted)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material:
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j5vDURSuz65R1gZxgxLKsK9H5cI_ux0YixAP9XhSgXg/edit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Action Item: Review document and make any comments (please submit
>>>>>>> feedback in comment form so edits are easier to manage). We plan to submit
>>>>>>> a motion to adopt at April’s Council meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *GAC Liaison Guidelines*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deadline: 18 April Council Meeting (but deadline can be moved if
>>>>>>> more discussion is warranted)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Action Item: Review document and make any comments (please submit
>>>>>>> feedback in comment form so edits are easier to manage). We plan to submit
>>>>>>> a motion to adopt at the April’s meeting but recognize more discussion may
>>>>>>> be needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Proposed Amendment to Recommendation 7*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deadline: May 17 (after our April meeting), but we are including
>>>>>>> here because it is related (in subject matter) to the proposed bylaw
>>>>>>> amendment referenced above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material: (letter from Tripti attached)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Action Item: Consult with your SGs to determine if there are
>>>>>>> objections to the proposed revision of recommendation 7. We can discuss at
>>>>>>> our April meeting and prepare a response before the 17 May deadline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> council mailing list
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
|
