+1
Kathy
On 4/8/2024 9:12 PM, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> 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.
>
--
Kathy Kleiman
Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
|