Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4
Johan Helsingius
julf at JULF.COM
Fri Jun 27 02:11:38 EEST 2025
Thia approach definitely has my support.
Julf
On 26/06/2025 15:02, Tomslin Samme-Nlar 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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:leadership at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:ecadmin at icann.org
> <mailto:ecadmin at icann.org>>>, Justine Chew
> <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com
> <mailto:justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
> > <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:ecadmin- <mailto:ecadmin->
> > leave at icann.org <mailto: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/ <https://www.icann.org/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> <https://www.icann.org/
> <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!
>
>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list