Dear Joke, all

I’m fine with the letter itself but I failed to find the Annex mentioned in the letter

 

Irina

 

From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Joke Braeken via Ccnso-council
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:56 PM
To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: [ccnso-council] [REVIEW DRAFT] Letter to ICANN Board | change of Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws

 

Dear Councillors,

 

I am following up on the correspondence below. The ccNSO now needs to formally submit a request to the ICANN Board to change the Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws, to enable IDN ccTLD Managers to become members of the ccNSO. 

 

A draft letter to the ICANN Board is available for your review. Go to

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FIWNclZcgUc3RoNWkX2QkdyqXEvRXRHliK3penUtzwE/edit?usp=sharing

 

Since time is of essence in this process, please review the proposed draft by Wednesday, 8 September 2021 (23:59 UTC). 

Your comments or suggestions are welcome.

 

Background

 

This change request is the result of an extensive consultation with the ccNSO members. It started with the second ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs, which was adopted by the membership in 2013. Additional community consultations took place: in October 2019 - on separating the Bylaw change effort and the launch of the 4th ccNSO PDP on the selection of IDN ccTLD strings – followed by consultations as part of the ccNSO Statement process on the proposed changes of Article 10 and Annex B ( https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/ccnso-to-icann-legal-18feb21-en.pdf).

Recently ICANN legal provided a response to the ccNSO Statement on the proposed changes to Article 10 of the ICANN Bylaws. Following ICANN Legal’s questions and suggested changes, additional consultations were held in August 2021 regarding the latest proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B: Council was consulted from 13-19 August, and the ccNSO membership was consulted 20-27 August. 

Some community members submitted comments, which did not result in further edits to the latest proposed Bylaw changes to Article 10 and Annex B, as per the rationale previously circulated (see email below).

 

Best regards,

 

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor

joke.braeken@icann.org

 

 

From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Reply to: Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>
Date: Monday, 30 August 2021 at 20:37
To: aclu <aclu@twnic.tw>
Cc: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] [REVIEW DRAFT] Feedback on Proposed Amendmen ts to Article 10 and Annex B

 

Dear Ai-chin and All

 

Thank you for your kind reminder. I agree with you, this process has taken a long time to get to where we are and it is not the first time this definition has been presented to the community. It was already included in the proposed overall policy for the inclusion of IDNccTLD Managers in the ccNSO selection of IDN ccTLD strings (ccPDP2) as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013, and submitted to the Board. The definition was confirmed again in the October 2019 consultation resulting in the request to change Article 10 and Annex B of the Bylaws and in the ccNSO Statement on the first set of questions from ICANN Legal more recently. Additionally, in the discussions with respect to the ccPDP4 (de-)selection of IDN ccTLD strings, the term ‘Territory’ will be proposed and is defined in the same manner.

 

Therefore, I propose that we relay the comments received to ICANN Legal and keep the current definition. I have cleaned the Google Doc [docs.google.com] and everyone can send comments or suggestions until tomorrow at 22:00 UTC.

 

Best regards,

Alejandra

 

--

 

Image removed by sender. Photograph

 

Alejandra Reynoso
Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt

 

P: +502 23688565
E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt

 

18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109)
Guatemala, Guatemala

 

www.gt [gt]

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 6:29 AM aclu <aclu@twnic.tw> wrote:

Dear Alejandra,

 

I agree with your proposal,  but I think the main purpose of the amendment of article 10 is to allow IDN ccTLD to be ccNSO members. (the draft team's main jobs).  I’m afraid that if we raise the issues about the "country" and " territory,"  that might take more time to pass the amendment.

 

regards

ai-chin
-----Original message-----
From:Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council<ccnso-council@icann.org>
To:ccNSO Council<ccnso-council@icann.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 07:05:30
Subject: [ccnso-council] [REVIEW DRAFT] Feedback on Proposed Amendments to Article 10 and Annex B

Dear Councillors

 

Following the ccNSO Members' consultation regarding the Proposed Amendments to Article 10 and Annex B. It is time to report back to ICANN Legal with our findings, suggestions and/or edits.

 

I have drafted an email response in the following Google Doc:

 

Please review it and feel free to edit and add comments until next Tuesday 31/August, so it can be finalized by Wednesday 1/September.

 

Have a great weekend! :)

Best regards,
Alejandra

 

--

 

Image removed by sender. Photograph

 

Alejandra Reynoso
Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt

 

P: +502 23688565
E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt

 

18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109)
Guatemala, Guatemala

 

www.gt [gt]

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
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/policy) and the website Terms of Service (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.