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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
|
