[council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

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, <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> 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 <
> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> 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 <
>> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> 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 <manju at nii.org.tw>
>>> 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 <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:33 AM
>>>> Subject: [council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79
>>>> To: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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:* COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG
>>>> *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
>>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240329/a3e182ba/attachment.htm>