Dear Stephen, Thank you for your note and related messages. In light of the extensive (private) conversation you and I had on this matter in Istanbul and the discussion on the Council call last week I am unpleasantly surprised to say the least by your latest messages. As you will have seen from the notes of the 12 of December Council call, the Council did discuss the letter we received on the 11 of December from Becky Burr, current chair of the ccPDP3-Review Mechanism Board Caucus. In her letter Becky referred to our question regarding the interpretation of Section 15a as requested in our letter from 27 of September. As you make clear in your email to the Council and related private messages to me, you and some members of the working group that originally developed the policy disagree with the interpretation as provided. It is my understanding that you have neither informed nor consulted the working group with respect to the interpretation as provided. I therefore take the disagreement with interpretation of Section 15a to represent the view of a small group of members of the working group, who may or may not have seen Becky’s letter. Others, including your fellow Councillors, do accept the interpretation provided by ICANN as referenced in the letter. From a Council perspective no further action is required with respect to this matter. In your email to Council you also refer to the duration of the Board consideration of the policy. Let me start by saying that I agree with you that it takes a long time. However, looking at the process to date, since 26 of June 2023, the following steps have been taken, which can not be directly attributed to the Board itself: - August 2023 - December 2023: Article 3.6 required Public consultation and GAC consultation. Approximately 140 days. - April 2024 - September 2024: developing ccNSO draft responses on questions from the Board Caucus. 157 days These steps (almost 300 days) are institutional or due to our own pace, and have also determined the duration of the Board consideration process to date. As you will have read Becky’s letter, she recognizes there is room for improvement with respect to engagement of policy recommendations and the timeline of the Board’s decision making. Accepting our suggestion that the caucus, staff and members of the drafting team should meet to discuss any pending unclarities, she invited us to meet on 30 January 2025. At the 12 December Council meeting we accepted this invite, and we will discuss who should participate in that meeting at our next Council call on 16 January 2025. With this in mind I object to the language and images you use in your email for those who disagree with your interpretation and approach, and I request you to refrain from them going forward: it is distracting and dysfunctional. As you know we do discuss progress of the Board Consideration of ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP4-IDN at our regular Council meetings. Expressing your frustration without looking at the facts, does not serve Council’s goal of bringing the adoption of the review mechanism over the finish line as soon as possible. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:32 PM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings fellow councilors,
For those not paying attention, today marks 552 days since the ccNSO Council, after two plus years of policy development by a dually constituted Working Group of which I had the privilege of chairing, , the issuance of the appropriate Issues report to the Community, a vote by the Community as per our Guidelines for policy development, a subsequent vote by the Council confirming the Community’s approval of the proposed policy, that the policy recommendation was formally submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
By way of contrast, construction of the Eiffel Tower began on 28 January 1887 and was completed on 31 March 1899. It’s construction thus took 428 days.
That’s 124 fewer days than the ICANN Board has been sitting on its collective arse regarding the Review Mechanism.
Annex B, Section 15(a) and 14(b) state that:
[---START---] a. The Board shall meet to discuss the ccNSO Recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Issue Manager, taking into account procedures for Board consideration.
b. The Board shall adopt the ccNSO Recommendation unless by a vote of more than 66% the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or of ICANN.
[---END---]
The Board, either via its in-house legal tortoise, or its external legal tortoise, Jones, Day, is of the opinion that they are in compliance with Annex B, Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the ICANN Bylaws.
I do not share that opinion.
My patience with the Board’s inaction has been exhausted. The Board’s continued in-action (the next scheduled get-together with the Board’s “ad-hoc” Committee considering this policy is not scheduled until 30.01.2025, making it 582 days since the ccNSO Submitted the proposed policy) is frankly an insult to the ccNSO Community as a supporting organisation within the ICANN Multi-stakeholder model, and an insult to the ccNSO Community volunteers who gave up their time, over more than 60 in-person and tele-conference meetings, to labour on and develop, via consensus, the proposed policy.
I do not use the word “insult” lightly. What the Board is doing via their in-action is an insult to the ccNSO Community, the overall ICANN Community, and the Council writ-large. I believe that their continued inaction is also placing the entire mutli-stakeholder model in jeopardy.
When we hashed out how the entire “post transition” model should work in Santa Monica all those years ago now, it was not the intent of the CCWG membership to hand to the ICANN Board essentially unlimited power to ignore policy proposals put forward by the ICANN Community. It was the opposite.
Yet this is what they think they have.
My question for my fellow Council members is as follows:
Do you wish to continue to be led around by the ICANN Board via the nose ring that they have metaphorically inserted into all of our nostrils, or do you wish to collectively stand up and say “enough is enough” to the Board?
As I said earlier, my patience with the Board’s continued in-action regarding their consideration of the Review Mechanism is exhausted.
Best Regards,
//Stephen
The Board’s “ad-hoc” group
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list -- ccnso-council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ccnso-council-leave@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/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.