Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4

James Gannon james at POLICYWONK.XYZ
Thu Jun 26 08:31:47 EEST 2025 

This has my support, the GNSO supporting the community action would not be
the path I would support (And from my network at least neither does any of
the community outside of the At-Large folks)

--

James


On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 14:02, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Seun,
>
> Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
>
> I agree that the community certainly needs to discuss this and that
> discussion I believe started in Prague.  However, the sequence of events
> (amongst other proposals) that seemed to me middle ground for the
> community  was the following:
>
>    - Community to propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would
>    amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently
>    required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with
>    reviews as output recommendations) and suspend the conduct of all Reviews
>    until this exercise is completed;
>    - With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not
>    done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back
>    fully into force.
>
> That is the sequence I propose NCSG supports.
>
> Remain blessed,
> Tomslin
>
> On Mon, 23 June 2025, 23:44 Seun Ojedeji, <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tomslin,
>>
>> What you say in your last statement with regards to option, does sound to
>> me like a discussion that needs to happen during the community discussion
>> phase as part of the reconsideration process, if there is no support to
>> even get past the current stage how does the community formally get on to
>> the next.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be more strategic to support and then discuss any
>> further modification of what the community wants ATRT4 and beyond to look
>> like, unless NCSG is saying it's fine for the Board to go against its own
>> bylaw and no further ICANN accountability is due.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 22:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James, all,
>>>
>>> I am with you here from a strategy point of view. My view (and I
>>> attempted to convey this during our bilateral with ALAC in Prague) is that
>>> narrowly focusing only on the sole issue of the bylaw violation (of not
>>> starting ATRT4), and not the underlying problem of how reviews are done
>>> (including timely implementation of recommendations that come out of each
>>> review cycle before the next) is not the better strategy overall.
>>>
>>> I am aware ALAC argues that ATRT4 SHOULD be used for this purpose (of
>>> reviewing the review strategy), but since per the bylaws, we cannot
>>> pre-scope what ATRT4 can or can not do, I believe the risks outweigh the
>>> benefits here, since nothing stops any ATRT4 member from asking for a wider
>>> scope similar to ATRT3 or more, thereby putting us in the same position or
>>> worse.
>>>
>>> The option to first put together a community group with a predictable
>>> narrow scope to review the reviews strategy and how they are done, before
>>> starting the next review cycle seems to me the better holistic option.
>>>
>>> Remain blessed,
>>> Tomslin
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 June 2025, 18:08 James Gannon, <james at policywonk.xyz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed. This would not have my support.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 09:01 Johan Helsingius <
>>>> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we should support it.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Julf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/06/2025 09:20, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>>>> > **PLEASE READ**
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For discussion  below. We must decide as a stakeholder group whether
>>>>> we
>>>>> > support this request or not.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Tomslin
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> > From: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar* <mesumbeslin at gmail.com
>>>>> > <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>>
>>>>> > Date: Sat, 21 June 2025, 17:17
>>>>> > Subject: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration
>>>>> on on
>>>>> > the postponement of ATRT4
>>>>> > To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> > <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dear Councilors,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As you will find attached, ALAC has initiated a
>>>>> CommunityReconsideration
>>>>> > Request Petition on the Board’s postponement of ATRT4. As a result,
>>>>> ALAC
>>>>> > is seeking support from other Decision Participants of the EC for
>>>>> this
>>>>> > request.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > According ICANN Bylaws Annex D, Section 4.3, the GNSO as Decision
>>>>> > Parricipant has 21 days to decide if we support the request or not.
>>>>> This
>>>>> > period began on 19th June.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I will discuss with leadership on how best we can address this
>>>>> request
>>>>> > within the time frame since our regular council meeting might be a
>>>>> bit
>>>>> > late for a discussion. In the meantime, please circulate with your
>>>>> SG/Cs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Remain blessed,
>>>>> > Tomslin
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> > From: *Jonathan Zuck via ECAdmin* <ecadmin at icann.org
>>>>> > <mailto:ecadmin at icann.org>>
>>>>> > Date: Fri, 20 June 2025, 02:17
>>>>> > Subject: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on
>>>>> the
>>>>> > postponement of ATRT4
>>>>> > To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Soac-leadership <soac-
>>>>> > leadership at icann.org <mailto:soac-leadership at icann.org>>
>>>>> > Cc: Christian Wheeler via ECAdmin <ecadmin at icann.org
>>>>> > <mailto:ecadmin at icann.org>>, Justine Chew <
>>>>> justine.chew.icann at gmail.com
>>>>> > <mailto:justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>>, Claire C. Craig
>>>>> > <claireccraig at gmail.com <mailto:claireccraig at gmail.com>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Fellow EC Chairs and EC Administrator
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Please find attached the ALAC initiated petition for an EC Request
>>>>> for
>>>>> > Reconsideration on the matter of reviews. Please let me know if you
>>>>> have
>>>>> > any questions.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __ __
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jonathan
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __ __
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jonathan Zuck
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Chair, ALAC
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __ __
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > ECAdmin mailing list -- ecadmin at icann.org <mailto:ecadmin at icann.org>
>>>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to ecadmin-leave at icann.org <mailto:
>>>>> ecadmin-
>>>>> > leave at icann.org>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website
>>>>> Terms of
>>>>> > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,*
>>
>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250626/9b939266/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list