Dear Alejandra,

I do not believe that Bylaw changes should be made on the fly. Normally it requires a formal PDP.

I understand the bylaws not to permit a PDP to be “reviewed” by another Working Group and to then make “recommendations” not envisioned in the PDP.

As I wrote before, I can not recall the “further consultation”, as I have spelled out in my previous email.

I do not understand the bylaws to permit changes to a Developed Policy to be made by a “drafting team”.

I do not recall that this was presented at ICANN 71 in the context we are considering now, and I really strongly agree with Patricio here.


Now 4 very experienced (I hate to say senior :-)-O) ccTLD Managers (Stephen, Hiro, myself and Patricio (in order of experience)) raise concerns suggestiong to step back and have another look and your recommendation is ramming it through on purely formal grounds. 

This is a concern, and might raise issues with regard to corporate governance under California law. 

But the question is, why would one want to do that? 

Would it not be more transparent to ventilate the issue to its conclusion?

greetings, el

On 22. Sep 2021, 17:28 +0200, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-members <ccnso-members@icann.org>, wrote:

Dear Patricio

In our recent phone call, we reviewed the milestones of this process, and confirmed that:

1) From April to June 2019 the ccPDP2 was reviewed by a ccNSO working group, who recommended to split ccPDP2 into a Bylaw change and formal review of the proposed policy to select IDNccTDLstrings (which is now ccPDP4);
2) further consultations with the community were made in 2019 & 2020 when the definition and use of the term were explicitly discussed and nobody objected;
3) the Bylaw change was submitted to the ICANN Board in March 2020;
4) ICANN legal raised some editorial questions that were reviewed by a drafting team and finally,
5) the term and definition were further presented under the ccPDP4 context at ICANN71 when the polling resulted in support of the definition.

We were in agreement that due process was followed and that issues with content should have been raised earlier, while friendly disagreeing if the suggested change is just an editorial matter or not.

Best regards,
Alejandra

--

	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

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:47 AM Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote:

Dear Alejandra,

A couple of comments about your report yesterday to the Council.

While it is true that in 2013 the membership voted to support the ccPDP2 report (voted twice, actually, as the first vote did not meet the quorum requirement), no one could say that it was a referendum on terminology (e.g. "territory" vs. "country"). The real substantive decision was about the mechanism for participation of IDN CCTLD managers, a decision I voted for and still fully support.

As we know, the ccPDP2 process did not go on at the time, and the innovation in terminology that it attempted to introduce was largely forgotten. The Framework of Interpretation report, adopted the following year, consistently uses the phrase "country or territory". The Retirement report, approved this year, does not mention the word "territory" at all. In that, it is consistent with RFC1591.

When reactivating the work suspended in 2013 to amend Article 10 of the ICANN Bylaws, it is appropriate to reconsider the terminology used, and to make sure that it is consistent with current practice. It is clear that the 2013 attempt to introduce "territory" as the accepted word to characterize country-code TLDs did not get traction, as clearly no later work has adopted that terminology.

I agree with your stated position that this is not the time to reconsider substantive matters, but I believe that changing "territory" to "country or territory" would be a timely and needed editorial change to make before these amendments become part of the ICANN Bylaws.

Patricio

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 11:45 AM Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> wrote:

Dear Patricio

Thank you very much for your comment and feedback.

I will forward your concern to ICANN Legal.

Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that later in the bylaw change process there will be a public comment period, where you are welcome to participate.

Best regards,

Alejandra

--

	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

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:30 AM Patricio Poblete via Ccnso-members <ccnso-members@icann.org> wrote:

Hello all,

Some comments, speaking exclusively as a ccTLD administrator.

First the easy stuff: in (e) (iii), change "manger" to "manager"

Now, the main point. I really disagree with the deprecation of the word "country" and its replacement by "territory".

Among the ccTLDs, countries are the rule, and non-country territories are the exception. We are ccTLDs, not tcTLDs, and the ccNSO is not the tcNSO.

I don't think it is a good idea to have the bylaws break in its use of terms from long standing tradition. RFC1591 speaks only of countries, never of territories, even though I suppose Postel was aware he was abusing the word "country" a little bit. The FoI report uses "countries or territories" a lot, but even then, "country" is used twice as often as "territory".

My preference would be to use "countries" throughout, and have a note at the beginning specifying  that the use of this word in the bylaws must be interpreted to mean "countries or territories". My second best choice would be to use "countries or territories" everywhere.

Finally, I would suggest a better wording for the phrase "or other area of particular geopolitical interest listed on the ‘International Standard ISO 3166-1,...', which might be understood as if  other territories that did not get their own code would be of no particular geopolitical interest. A better phrase could be 'or other geographical area listed on the ‘International Standard ISO 3166-1,...'

Thanks for your attention,

Patricio

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 5:48 AM Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-members <ccnso-members@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

As you may recall, the ccNSO requested a change of Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws to enable IDNccTLD Managers to become members of the ccNSO. Recently ICANN legal raised some additional questions and suggested some further changes to the proposed Bylaw changes. The proposed changes are included in the redlined document and listed at the end of this email. The ccnSO Council had no issues with the further changes (Council was consulted from 13-19 August).  As a next step you are asked, whether you have any concerns / comments regarding the latest proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B. The proposed changes are listed at the end of this email and included in the attached document.  If so please mail them to the membership list by Friday 27 August 2021, noon UTC.  

 

Kind regards,

Bart Boswinkel

ccNSO support staff

 

 

Background.

The change request of Article 10 and Annex B is the result of an extensive consultation of the ccNSO members. It started with the second ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDNccTLDs, 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 4^th ccNSO PDP on the selection of IDNccTLD strings and finally 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. ICANN legal had some questions and suggested some additional changes. The proposed changes are included in the redlined document and listed at the end of this email.

 

Recently the drafting team that prepared the ccNSO Statement has reviewed the additional proposals and had no comments nor did the ccNSO Council when they were consulted from 13- 19 August 2021 on the proposed changes.  As a next step you are asked, whether you have any concerns/comments regarding the latest proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B.

 

If there are no major concerns from your end, the consultation will be closed and ICANN informed that the ccNSO supports the amendment of Article 10 and Annex B as proposed.  

 

 

The additional proposed amendments to Article 10 and Annex B of the Bylaws.

 

Article 10 

 

• Section 10.4 (a) – changed “variant” to “modification” since variant has a special meaning in this context. Let me know if this works.
• Section 10.4(i) – added the concept of plurality. Now, the rule would be that the a majority of the Emissaries entitled to vote in a Geographic Region is needed for quorum,  and a candidate must receive a plurality of votes cast by the Emissaries within the Geographic Region to win.

 

In addition the drafting teams suggests to change the heading of Article 10. 4.e. The suggestion is to strike “and Territory” from the heading: “ Designation of Representative and Territory “. The section is about the designation of the ccTLD Representative.

 

Annex B

• Section 1.a. – Changed “affirmative vote of” to “documentation of support from” so as not to confuse the issue about voting on requesting an Issue Report.
• Section 1.e. – Changed the language regarding requesting an Issue Report by the members of the ccNSO. The language now reads, “At least ten members of the ccNSO from at least ten different Territories may call for the creation of an Issue Report at any meeting or by electronic means.”
• Section 1, last paragraph – Deleted the following phrase from the last paragraph of Section 1 so as to not confuse the issue about voting on requesting an Issue Report: “Any request for an Issue Report must be in writing and must set out the issue upon which an Issue Report is requested in sufficient detail to enable the Issue Report to be prepared. It shall be open to the Council to request further information or undertake further research or investigation for the purpose of determining whether or not the requested Issue Report should be created.” This final sentence creates ambiguity.
• Section 2, 1^st paragraph – changed the time from 7 days to 14 days for when the Council is required to appoint an Issue Manager after receipt of a request for an Issue Report. Also, deleted the references to the Item 1 sub-points since the timing requirement will apply to all of Item 1. 
• Section 3.a – changed “e-mail” to “electronic means” 
• Section 4 – changed “e-mail” to “electronic means” 
• Section 7.b. – changed “e-mail” to “electronic means”

 

 

Although out of scope, the drafting team re-iterated the need to discuss the issue pertaining to a single entity organization managing multiple ccTLD related to different Territories and their ability to cast multiple votes. This was already raised as an issue when they drafted the ccNSO position, but brought to the attention of the Council again.  

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
_______________________________________________
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.