[Urgent] IANA Function Review Issues update

[Pascal Bekono]

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for sharing this concern.

"....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.

I think that it's fair resolution, it will solve both issues, IFR RT formed
and bylaws change.
Also, the second question of Tomslin is very interesting, it shows that the
compromise should have a framework.

Best regards,


Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 11:10, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> 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?
>
> 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).
>
> These are my concerns but I'll let other members give their opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Wed., 13 Mar. 2019, 19:58 Rafik Dammak, <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> 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:
>> - 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.
>> - that ccNSO commits to ask for change to bylaws regarding the
>> requirement.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I think that is a fair compromise and it is better to start this IFR RT
>> where we already appointed our representatives.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le sam. 12 janv. 2019 à 09:32, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> thanks all for your comments, that is really helpful.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> Le ven. 11 janv. 2019 à 03:09, Paul Rosenzweig <
>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>>
>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>>>
>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>>>
>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>>>
>>>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>>>>
>>>> My PGP Key:
>>>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Tomslin
>>>> Samme-Nlar
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 9, 2019 4:55 PM
>>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Consultation] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tomslin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu., 10 Jan. 2019, 00:11 Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> `````else we do another shutdown for an imaginary wall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kris Seeburn
>>>> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>>>>
>>>> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 16:35, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 13:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: *Drazek, Keith via council*
>>>> Date: mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 08:15
>>>> Subject: [council] FW: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>>>> To:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Trang Nguyen
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 11:55 AM
>>>> *To:*
>>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please see attached letter regarding two issues with the IANA Naming
>>>> Function Review Team that we are requesting your organization help address.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trang Nguyen
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, GDD Strategic Programs
>>>>
>>>> ICANN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ccNSO_IFRT letter to appointing orgs[1].pdf><IFR Issues Resolution
>>>> Request.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190313/5edcc18c/attachment.htm>