[NCSG-EC] [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
mesumbeslin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 2 00:11:04 EEST 2025
Hi NCSG leadership,
I believe based on the discussion so far, it is safe to conclude that NCSG
will not support the ALAC request for Reconsideration. As a result, I will
let the council list know of this, unless anyone has any objections.
Remain blessed,
Tomslin
On Fri, 27 June 2025, 18:18 David Cake, <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
> 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!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20250702/fc0ceb54/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list