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. >>>>> >>>>