Dear colleagues, I think the letter is fine, but agree with Chris that we could perhaps suggest either that we are just writing to give Icann the view they asked for in Sam’s letter, or any actions. I think it’s just the first of those things essentially - it’s like a courtesy heads up. Irina, my understanding of why it’s excluded is because of the basis in RFC 1591 as well as the FOI work, that there would be a specific mechanism for dealing with appeals set out by the ccnso, not folded into icann’s general IRP. I’d love it if any of the longer serving of the council could correct or confirm or add to this understanding? Cheers Jordan On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Good point
I would expect Board to approve the retirement policy at its earliest convenience -))
*From:* Ccnso-council <> *On Behalf Of *Chris Disspain via Ccnso-council *Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:24 PM *To:* ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
So, I’m fine with the letter BUT my question is, what do we want the board to actually do? I get we’ve answered the questions and summarised that in the ‘Conclusion’ section but should we follow that with an ‘as a result, the ccNSO believes that the board should now take the following action in respect to the Retirement Policy recommendations…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
*From: *Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
I am emailing you on behalf of Alejandra to seek your comments and input on the included draft letter to Samantha Eisner, ICANN legal. This letter is a response she raised to the Council via the ccNSO PDP3 WG on review mechanism. The question is whether (future) decisions under the proposed retirement policy should be excluded from the ICANN Independent review process (like matters pertaining to delegation and “re-delegations”. Specifically she asked:
*As there is specific reference in the Retirement Policy Recommendations to the ccPDP-RM in relation to two retirement-related issues, does the ccNSO (*emphasis added*) consider both retirement issues set out at 5.2 of the Retirement Policy Recommendations as matters relating to delegation and transfer sufficient to both be excluded from the ICANN Independent Review Process? *
As you will recall, Stephen, in his capacity of chair of the Review Mechanism WG, raised the issue of the question a few times on the Council call and, as you also will recall, Patricio raised this issue during his presentation to the Council on (16 June 2022) on the progress with respect to the Board consideration of the proposed retirement policy.
The included draft intends to answer the direct question from Samantha, but will also provide some clarity from a ccNSO perspective on related matters, such as carve-out from the IRP of revocation, need to update the language in the Bylaws to align with the Framework interpretation and extend carve=out of retirement to Reconsideration (section 4.2 of the Bylaws).
Next steps.
If you have any questions or comments please provide them on the list over the next week (preferably no later than *Monday 11 July 17.00 UTC*. The document will then be updated, consolidating your comments, and re-circulated. Tomorrow (Tuesday) we will provide the draft also in Google doc format.
Goal is to approve the letter at the next council call ( 21 July 2022), however if feasible Alejandra suggests to take an on-line decision before the meeting.
Thank you on behalf of Alejandra,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand +64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
