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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>