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.