[council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79

Sun Sep 1 22:17:44 EEST 2024

Hi everyone,

Following up on this, the potential move mentioned in the last message
happened, and we have now a proposal for a more specific exception related
to the Grant Program -
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-fundamental-bylaws-amendments-related-to-grant-program-07-08-2024.
We have until September 16th to contribute.

I do not have a firm opinion just yet, so would like to hear your thoughts.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.

Em seg., 8 de jul. de 2024 às 11:01, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hi everyone,
>
> A quick update on the accountability mechanisms part, related to something
> Tomslin already pointed out in his last response (not sure if it is
> fruitful to discuss it now, maybe we should wait and see what the results
> delivered by ICANN org are, but interesting to keep it in mind
> nevertheless). The summary report
> <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/governance/public-comment-summary-report-proposed-bylaws-updates-limit-access-accountability-mechanisms-02-07-2024-en.pdf>
> has an interesting conclusion:
>
> *Notably, however, the commenters a*
> *re not opposed to the idea of supporting any Fundamental Bylaws
> Amendment, instead requesting that a more limited, Grant Program-specific
> Amendment be presented for community consideration.While there were
> commenters supportive of moving the Bylaws amendment forward as drafted,
> opportunity remains to see if a proposal can be drafted that is more
> satisfactory to the broader community*
>
> Other comments are clearer in this direction, but the GNSO comment
> <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/public-comment/proceeding/Proposed%20Bylaws%20Updates%20to%20Limit%20Access%20to%20Accountability%20Mechanisms-27-02-2024/submissions/GNSO%20Council/GNSO_Council_PublicComment_15Apr2024-15-04-2024.pdf>
> also leaves some margin for interpretation:
>
> *For these reasons, the Council does not support any Bylaws change in
> substantially the form being proposed and likely would be instructed by its
> constituent SGs and Cs to reject any formal vote*
>
> What do you think? Could a more specific exception be ok and we would have
> to see what eventually comes up, or this is by principle an unwanted change?
>
> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
> Researcher
> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> Board Member @ NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
> <https://isoc.org.br/>, CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> 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 ter., 9 de abr. de 2024 às 10:41, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech>
> escreveu:
>
>> +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 <manju at nii.org.tw>
>> 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 <
>>> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> 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 <
>>>> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> 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, <
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>> Kathy Kleiman
>> Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240901/07f00232/attachment.htm>