[ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4
David Cake
dave at DAVECAKE.NET
Fri Jun 27 03:18:32 EEST 2025
While I regard the bylaws violation of the board postponement of ATRT4 to be very problematic, I agree with the other comments that the ALAC suggested strategy is not ideal. It should be made very clear to the board that issues with Review Teams, especially with delays in implementations, are a major concern, and that if there is not a plan to significantly address them with full board support, then options such as the EC powers will have to be considered, though.
David
> On 27 Jun 2025, at 3:11 pm, Johan Helsingius <00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
> 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