+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