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

Thu Jun 26 08:34:00 EEST 2025

I support too.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:32 AM James Gannon <james at policywonk.xyz> wrote:

> 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/20250626/66ae1cfc/attachment.htm>