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
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> 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