Greetings fellow council members, I have two topics, the first of which is basically a constitutional question, and the second of which is a straight up request for an interpretation of a rather badly worded ICANN Bylaw. For the latter, presumably the Board would nudge the tortoise that is ICANN Legal to come out of their shell and provide the Community an interpretation. Let me begin with my first topic… The constitutional question is this: Can the ICANN Board selectively ignore ICANN Bylaws? This is essentially what they have been doing with respect to Section 15(a) of Annex B with respect to the ccNSO PDP-3 Retirement of ccTLDs policy, which the ccNSO Community presented to them some seven months ago. Although I have reason to believe that at the end of the day (and hopefully within my lifetime) the Board will eventually exercise their responsibility under Section 15(a) of Annex B, the question remains. Can the ICANN Board selectively ignore ICANN Bylaws? Admittedly in their defence, at ICANN74, a spirited argument was made that they were (are) in compliance with Annex B Section 15(a), citing the clause “…taking into account procedures for Board consideration.” It is my view that holding this clause as paramount to how Annex B Section 15(a) begins “The Board shall meet to discuss the ccNSO Recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Issue Manager…” is incorrect. Annex B Section 15(a) begins with a straightforward statement that the “Board shall meet…”. I do not see any ambiguity there. I submit if it were the intent of the legal eagles who wrote the Bylaws essentially overnight in the run-up to the IANA transition to give the ICANN Board an “out” with respect to actually having to act on Policy presented to them by a Supporting Organisation, they would have (or should have) lead Annex B 15(a) with language to that effect. But they did not. Thus it is my contention that Board is in violation of their obligations under Annex B, Section 15(a), and have been for some seven months or so now… Which brings me back to my question: Can the Board selectively ignore ICANN Bylaws? I would like to hear them pontificate on this topic. This is of obvious interest to not just the ccNSO, but the other SO/ACs, as well as the Community writ large. My second topic is straight-forward: What exactly does Section 8.8 of the ICANN Bylaws mean? They bylaw reads as follows: Section 8.8. Ineligibility for selection by the Nominating Committee No person who serves on the Nominating Committee in any capacity shall be eligible for nomination by any means to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body having one or more membership positions that the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling, until the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting that coincides with, or is after, the conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee. What does this say? Or more to the point, what does ICANN Legal think its actual intent is? Does it preclude a sitting ccNSO Council member from being the ccNSO’s sole representative to the NomCom? Is that the intent here? If so, we likely goofed with Pablo’s term on the NomCom. I do not have an answer to this; I just want to pose the question. That’s it from me. Best Regards, /Stephen