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. >> >