Greetings Alejandra, I fiddled with the text a bit. Given my historic “hate-hate” relationship with Google Docs, I cannot guarantee they “took” 😉 Best regards, //Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 at 07:12 To: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: [CORRESPONDENCE] Tripti Sinha to Alejandra Reynoso - Reminder RE: PICs/RVCs Consultation Dear All Here you'll find the draft letter to send to Tripti on this matter https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yhf3ro61Y0vgd1rSkG66kzF-Ig4WSC_dJTFajSSQ... Please add your comments and suggestions no later than Thursday 11.April, so it can be sent on the 12 April. 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, Apr 4, 2024 at 5:19 PM Peter Koch <pk@denic.de<mailto:pk@denic.de>> wrote: Dear Councillors
1. *It seems strange that we [ccNSO] give feedback on a framework that we have not participated in. Isn't it out of our scope?* From previous letter from Tripti [page #9]
accepting (and agreeing with) the principle of non-interference, not responding to this part makes sense to me.
2. Supporting ICANN's enforcement of contractual terms that could be argued to regulate content in gTLDs. *I'm not sure if we can support or not such a thing (scope), but we certainly express our opinion on ICANN's mission.* 3. Supporting an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to clarify ICANN's ability to do what was stated above in 2. *Without the potential text to be used, it's very hard to say if we will support a Fundamental Bylaw change in advance.*
The aforementioned principle does not apply here and given the risk of a spillover effect, why would we not want to send a message for (I'd prefer 'dogmatic' over 'ideological') reasons? Essence of that message being that we would expect significant confusion among ccTLDs regarding such a move, so beyond the caveats raised by Alejandra, we would not be able to predict a positive result. Best regards Peter