<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">I am in agreement with you on this, Amr. Let’s allow them to kickstart this important review and watch their good faith in starting the review of this section in the bylaws.<br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On 19 Mar 2019, at 08:42, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Speaking for myself, I don’t mind the ccNSO being granted some leeway on this. If I’m not mistaken (I was not directly involved with the work of the CCWG-ACCT, so might very well be mistaken), the bylaw requiring ccTLD managers that are not ccNSO members being involved in this review was to ensure that the ccNSO doesn’t monopolize the voice of ccTLDs in this review. According to them, their membership has grown significantly since then, and they are unable to find ccTLD managers who are not members to populate the IFR Team.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the ccNSO can demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken, which have failed, to try to recruit non-ccNSO members, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t just go ahead and fill the void by appointing their own members. That probably should have been the recommendation coming out of the CCWG-ACCT anyway. Perhaps something to be considered, when drafting the new bylaws.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Of course, this review of the relevant bylaws should also commence with urgency.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Amr<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 18, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM" class="">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Hi Tomslin,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">thanks for the comment.</div><div class="">I think they are committing as that was stated in public record in several meetings such as GNSO-ccNSO councils meeting, also including communication with ICANN board if I am not mistaking. so I don't believe the ccBSO will backpedal in such matter.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The purpose is to start the IFRT work asap while the process for bylaws change will take its own course. There are some timeframes with regard to bylaws change as that would involve the empowered community if I am not mistaking. With that, we will be aware about the process and change. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rafik</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 19:10, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" class="">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">Hi Rafik,<div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks for the update. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Can we know a little more what "commit to ask for change of bylaws" mean? Is it fair to say we will need a way to track and monitor this "commitment", if we accept this compromise?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">The other question that disturbs me is, what if the proposal to change the bylaws doesn't go through before the completion of the IFRT's work? (I don't know what the lead times are for bylaw changes).<br class=""><br class="">These are my concerns but I'll let other members give their opinion.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Cheers,<br class="">Tomslin<br class=""> </div></div><br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed., 13 Mar. 2019, 19:58 Rafik Dammak, <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">hi all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">as you recall, I asked you about inout for NCSG position on issue for ccNSO to find a non-ccNSO ccTLD operator to join the IFR team (you can find the thread below). I shared the feedback at GNSO Council meeting in last January and sent note to Trang Nguyen from GDD. Since then the IFR RT formation is on hold and ccNSO brought the topic at the GNSO-cNSO councils joint meeting explaining:</div><div class="">- that ccNSO is victim of its own success as they increased their membership and few ccTLD operators are not members yet and they are not interested to participate in IFR.</div><div class="">- that ccNSO commits to ask for change to bylaws regarding the requirement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">they are asking us if NCSG doesn't object and so let the IFR RT get formed and starts its work, and they are going to start the process for bylaws change.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think that is a fair compromise and it is better to start this IFR RT where we already appointed our representatives.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rafik </div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 12 janv. 2019 à 09:32, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">thanks all for your comments, that is really helpful. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rafik</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">Le ven. 11 janv. 2019 à 03:09, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> a écrit :<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" class=""><div class="gmail-m_8441182005194494590m_8230838957027119099gmail-m_-5976886011932686602gmail-m_2043704310715412102WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">I agree 100%. If we cannot meet the bylaw requirements the right answer is to begin a process to change the bylaws – not for any part of the ICANN organization to unilaterally seek to waive them. More to the point, I don’t think that bylaws provisions are “waivable.” Without conformance to bylaws requirements, any subsequent action taken is illegitimate and likely subject to successful legal challenge<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Paul<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Paul Rosenzweig<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)" class="">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">O: +1 (202) 547-0660<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">M: +1 (202) 329-9650<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)" class="">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)" class="">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b class="">From:</b> NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>> <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Tomslin Samme-Nlar<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 9, 2019 4:55 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [Consultation] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">What I find strange is that by accepting the ccNSO proposal, we'll have a team that doesn't meet ICANN bylaws' requirements, performing a review in accordance with a scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">I couldn't find the rationale behind the requirement of a third ccNSO representative not being a ccNSO ccTLD member, but I am of the opinion that if the membership of the IFR team doesn't respect the bylaws requirements, the credibility of their output might be undermined in the community.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Cheers,<br class="">Tomslin<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On Thu., 10 Jan. 2019, 00:11 Kris Seeburn <<a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I fully agree on this stand. It does not solve the immediate situation but do we always have someone immediately? Day after day I see Icann going into what I cannot imagine. Although things have started going way south some time back but I stand with ``James on this stand we need to be strong and not permit people playing around. If so why was a bylaws even put in place. We may as well be Mickey Mouse all the way through. Things are serious and we have to push for a respectful and strong stand and not play on this game. Next time another story will come up. It is a time to put stops and as we say checks and balances are important and it Becomes easy to play when you create precedence.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">We all know what happens once precedence happens we play it on and on. That is my thinking process. I rarely state my mind and thoughts being pointed fingers but we need to stop those plays please and respect what is laid down. <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">`````else we do another shutdown for an imaginary wall<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Kris Seeburn <br class=""><a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="32" height="32" style="width: 0.3333in; height: 0.3333in;" id="gmail-m_8441182005194494590m_8230838957027119099gmail-m_-5976886011932686602gmail-m_2043704310715412102m_64648521984431145745EB5240-A81E-4DB0-B531-713151EB810B" class="" src="cid:"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;" class=""><a href="http://linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/</a><br class=""><br class="">"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"<br class=""><br class=""></span><img border="0" width="32" height="32" style="width: 0.3333in; height: 0.3333in;" id="gmail-m_8441182005194494590m_8230838957027119099gmail-m_-5976886011932686602gmail-m_2043704310715412102m_646485219844311457C5B78A14-EC3C-485F-A37F-DBB7AABDDE35" class="" src="cid:"><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><br class=""><br class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On 9 Jan 2019, at 16:35, James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@CYBERINVASION.NET" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">james@CYBERINVASION.NET</a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">This is an important message, and we need to take a very strong stand here that the bylaws must be implemented as written, the ccNSO needs to fulfil its bylaws mandate and staff the IFR correctly.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">We cannot continue to undermine the accountability mechanisms we created and agreed to during the IANA strwardship as we already have done with the AoC reviews. I hope this can be passed along to our councillors.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><br class=""><br class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">On 9 Jan 2019, at 13:19, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Hi all, <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I am sharing here a communication sent by ICANN GDD asking from community input regarding 2 issues raised with the IANA Naming Function Review Team formation. More details about the 2 issues are in the attached documents.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">looking forward to hear from you if there is any issue with the proposed options. In particular, those who were involved in the IANA Stewardship transition CWG may give some insights here.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Rafik<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br class="">From: <strong class=""><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="">Drazek, Keith via council</span></strong> <br class="">Date: mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 08:15<br class="">Subject: [council] FW: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues<br class="">To: <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Please see the attached request from ICANN for community input on two membership appointment issues currently facing the IANA Naming Functions Review Team – one related to a geographical diversity requirement, and the other a ccTLD-facing representation concern. Both issues are in play due to the new ICANN bylaws language and requirements related to the IFRT, so please review and advise if your SGs and Cs have views on a reasonable path forward. <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks in advance.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Keith<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><b class="">From:</b> Trang Nguyen <br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Monday, January 07, 2019 11:55 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> <br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Please see attached letter regarding two issues with the IANA Naming Function Review Team that we are requesting your organization help address.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Trang Nguyen<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Vice President, GDD Strategic Programs<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">ICANN<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><ccNSO_IFRT letter to appointing orgs[1].pdf><IFR Issues Resolution Request.pdf><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></body></html>