The ccNSO decision seem to make sense to me. While the bylaw requires this, I actually do think the EC can either keep silent and allow Board apply some flexibility (somewhere in the bylaw should allow that or did we just lock up the bylaws completely?) or send a collective letter to the Board to hold on with this - though I know that will be a tall order as not all EC members will prefer what is being suggested by ccNSO.

Cheers!

On May 2, 2017 23:10, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

FYI.

From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
To: 'Steve Crocker' <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 19:14:04 +0300
CC: <goran.marby@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org>, 'Chris Disspain'
<chris@disspain.uk>, 'Mike Silber' <mike.silber@board.icann.org>, "'SO/AC
Chairs'" <soac-chairs@icann.org>
Subject: [soac-chairs] Participation of the ccNSO in the RDS-WHOIS2 review

Dear Steve:

As, according to Section 4.6 (e) of the Bylaws, the Board caused the Registration Directory Service (RDS-WHOIS2) review, I convey to you the ccNSO Council decision with respect to participation of the ccNSO in this review.

As always, the ccNSO Council is available to explain its position.

Kindest regards,

Katrina Sataki
Chair of the ccNSO Council

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)