Re: [ccnso-council] [ccnso-members] Proposed Amendment Article 10 (ccNSO) Bylaws
Dear Patricio This topic will be raised today at the council call. Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:48 AM Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote:
Dear Alejandra,
I would like to know about the conclusion of this discussion, and whether the word "country" is still being deprecated and replace by "territory" in the proposed amendment to the bylaws.
Patricio
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 11:45 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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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.
*T**he **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, 1st 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.
Dear Patricio and All As said, I raised on the 16 September Council call your concerns regarding the latest iteration of proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B about the introduction of the term territory, Let me start with by saying that I appreciate that some members of the community may have concerns with the word “territory”. At the same, others don’t. I also want to note that after consulting ICANN legal it is my understanding that the rationale doesn’t raise any legal concerns. This seems to be an area where the ccNSO’s preferred terminology is OK to remain in the Bylaws. The most recent iteration on which you reacted, was about some editorial changes and clarifications on the proposed Bylaw changes. It was neither on the introduction of the term territory and its definition in Article 10, nor on moving the definition for purposes of Article 10 to section 10.4(a). The latter was agreed by the ccNSO in February 2021 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-to-icann-le... ). With respect to your concern about the concept “territory” and its definition, I want to draw your attention to the following: - In February 2020 the ccNSO Council requested the amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the Bylaws to enable IDNccTLD Managers to join the ccNSO if they choose to do so (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-botterm... ). - The requested changes originate from the recommended changes to the ccNSO Article IX and Annex B of the Bylaws in the 2013, and are part of ccPDP2 - the overall policy on the selection of IDNccTLD strings and inclusion of IDNccTLD Managers in the ccNSO. The ccNSO proposed policy was adopted by the ccNSO Council in April 2013 and supported by the required ccNSO Membership vote in August 2013 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14aug13-en.htm). - The concept of territory and its definition was included in the proposed policy (see Board Report on IDN ccNSO Policy Development Process, page 26, https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_41859/idn-ccpdp-board-... ). This text has been around for at least 8 years. - After general agreement to the Roadmap on IDNccTLDs in June 2019 and to ensure support for submitting the Bylaw change process to include IDNccTLDs in the ccNSO, the proposed Bylaw changes, were again (explicitly) presented and discussed during the policy session in Montréal at ICANN66 (2019). At that time no concerns were raised with respect to the inclusion of the concept “territory” in the Bylaws nor with its definition (see: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/gGpcKnQbxfcJAvzKS (Presentation 2, Slide 21). Taking into account that the introduction of the concept “territory” in the ICANN Bylaws and its definition are grounded in ccPDP2 as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013, its limited specific purpose, given there are no legal objections, and, finally, in 2019 and 2020 the community was extensively consulted and they supported to proceed with the proposed changes, the Council does not see any basis to make substantive changes to the proposed amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws. Best regards, Alejandra Reynoso ccNSO Council Chair -- [image: Photograph] *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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:37 AM Alejandra Reynoso < alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> wrote:
Dear Patricio
This topic will be raised today at the council call.
Best regards, Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:48 AM Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote:
Dear Alejandra,
I would like to know about the conclusion of this discussion, and whether the word "country" is still being deprecated and replace by "territory" in the proposed amendment to the bylaws.
Patricio
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 11:45 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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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.
*T**he **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, 1st 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.
Dear Alejandra, Do you consider the substitution of “Country or Territory” for “Territory” to be a substantive change? Best Regards, Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccNSO-Council@icann.org> Reply-To: Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> Date: Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:07 To: Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccNSO-Council@icann.org>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] [ccnso-members] Proposed Amendment Article 10 (ccNSO) Bylaws Dear Patricio and All As said, I raised on the 16 September Council call your concerns regarding the latest iteration of proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B about the introduction of the term territory, Let me start with by saying that I appreciate that some members of the community may have concerns with the word “territory”. At the same, others don’t. I also want to note that after consulting ICANN legal it is my understanding that the rationale doesn’t raise any legal concerns. This seems to be an area where the ccNSO’s preferred terminology is OK to remain in the Bylaws. The most recent iteration on which you reacted, was about some editorial changes and clarifications on the proposed Bylaw changes. It was neither on the introduction of the term territory and its definition in Article 10, nor on moving the definition for purposes of Article 10 to section 10.4(a). The latter was agreed by the ccNSO in February 2021 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-to-icann-le...). With respect to your concern about the concept “territory” and its definition, I want to draw your attention to the following: * In February 2020 the ccNSO Council requested the amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the Bylaws to enable IDNccTLD Managers to join the ccNSO if they choose to do so (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-botterm... ). * The requested changes originate from the recommended changes to the ccNSO Article IX and Annex B of the Bylaws in the 2013, and are part of ccPDP2 - the overall policy on the selection of IDNccTLD strings and inclusion of IDNccTLD Managers in the ccNSO. The ccNSO proposed policy was adopted by the ccNSO Council in April 2013 and supported by the required ccNSO Membership vote in August 2013 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14aug13-en.htm). * The concept of territory and its definition was included in the proposed policy (see Board Report on IDN ccNSO Policy Development Process, page 26, https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_41859/idn-ccpdp-board-... ). This text has been around for at least 8 years. * After general agreement to the Roadmap on IDNccTLDs in June 2019 and to ensure support for submitting the Bylaw change process to include IDNccTLDs in the ccNSO, the proposed Bylaw changes, were again (explicitly) presented and discussed during the policy session in Montréal at ICANN66 (2019). At that time no concerns were raised with respect to the inclusion of the concept “territory” in the Bylaws nor with its definition (see: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/gGpcKnQbxfcJAvzKS (Presentation 2, Slide 21). Taking into account that the introduction of the concept “territory” in the ICANN Bylaws and its definition are grounded in ccPDP2 as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013, its limited specific purpose, given there are no legal objections, and, finally, in 2019 and 2020 the community was extensively consulted and they supported to proceed with the proposed changes, the Council does not see any basis to make substantive changes to the proposed amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws. Best regards, Alejandra Reynoso ccNSO Council Chair -- [Photograph] Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt<http://www.gt/> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:37 AM Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>> wrote: Dear Patricio This topic will be raised today at the council call. Best regards, Alejandra -- [Photograph] Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt<http://www.gt/> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:48 AM Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl<mailto:ppoblete@nic.cl>> wrote: Dear Alejandra, I would like to know about the conclusion of this discussion, and whether the word "country" is still being deprecated and replace by "territory" in the proposed amendment to the bylaws. Patricio On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 11:45 Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto: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 -- [Photograph] Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt<http://www.gt/> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:30 AM Patricio Poblete via Ccnso-members <ccnso-members@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 4th 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, 1st 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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
Dear Stephen You asked whether the change is substantive, and I believe it is. As you may recall, we have discussed this matter on several occasions since early 2019 on the Council and with the community. We have those within the community who have consistently and explicitly supported including the proposed definition in Article 10 of the ICANN Bylaws and of the term “territory”. Starting with ccPDP2, which was ratified by the members vote in 2013 and later in 2019 (when the ccNSO agreed with the implementation of the recommended Bylaw change) it was again supported through the community consultations at ICANN64 and ICANN66. Only very recently, in the latest iteration when ICANN Legal suggested moving the definition to section 10.4(a), some members of the community raised a concern. To be clear, the definition we are discussing is the following: *For purposes of this Article, and Annexes B and C of these Bylaws, “Territory” is defined to be the country, dependency or other area of particular geopolitical interest listed on the ‘International Standard ISO 3166-1, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1: Country Codes’, or, in some exceptional cases listed on the reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements.* Replacing “territory” with “country or territory”, in this particular case, would create confusion. Having part of the term that needs to be defined (in this case “country”) as part of the definition itself does not make sense. It is my understanding that the term “territory” was introduced in ccPDP2 because it was considered to be a descriptive, neutral, geographical term which could be a country, a sub-division/dependency or other area of geopolitical interest. Further, by introducing the current definition into the Bylaws, the ccNSO (or ICANN for that matter) will NOT be in the position to define “what is and what is not a country”. Finally, please note that the specific purpose of this definition in the ICANN Bylaws is limited to group IDN ccTLDs and ASCII ccTLDs from the same geographical area as listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, to be able to refer to such grouping easily for the matters related to formal processes within the ccNSO, such as Council elections, members’ support for a ccPDP, etc.. Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *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 9:43 PM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Dear Alejandra,
Do you consider the substitution of “Country or Territory” for “Territory” to be a substantive change?
Best Regards,
Stephen
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccNSO-Council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> *Date: *Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:07 *To: *Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> *Cc: *ccNSO Council <ccNSO-Council@icann.org>, ccNSO Members < ccnso-members@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] [ccnso-members] Proposed Amendment Article 10 (ccNSO) Bylaws
Dear Patricio and All
As said, I raised on the 16 September Council call your concerns regarding the latest iteration of proposed changes to Article 10 and Annex B about the introduction of the term territory,
Let me start with by saying that I appreciate that some members of the community may have concerns with the word “territory”. At the same, others don’t. I also want to note that after consulting ICANN legal it is my understanding that the rationale doesn’t raise any legal concerns. This seems to be an area where the ccNSO’s preferred terminology is OK to remain in the Bylaws.
The most recent iteration on which you reacted, was about some editorial changes and clarifications on the proposed Bylaw changes. It was neither on the introduction of the term territory and its definition in Article 10, nor on moving the definition for purposes of Article 10 to section 10.4(a). The latter was agreed by the ccNSO in February 2021 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-to-icann-le... ).
With respect to your concern about the concept “territory” and its definition, I want to draw your attention to the following:
- In February 2020 the ccNSO Council requested the amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the Bylaws to enable IDNccTLD Managers to join the ccNSO if they choose to do so (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-botterm... ).
- The requested changes originate from the recommended changes to the ccNSO Article IX and Annex B of the Bylaws in the 2013, and are part of ccPDP2 - the overall policy on the selection of IDNccTLD strings and inclusion of IDNccTLD Managers in the ccNSO. The ccNSO proposed policy was adopted by the ccNSO Council in April 2013 and supported by the required ccNSO Membership vote in August 2013 (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14aug13-en.htm ).
- The concept of territory and its definition was included in the proposed policy (see Board Report on IDN ccNSO Policy Development Process, page 26, https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_41859/idn-ccpdp-board-... ). This text has been around for at least 8 years.
- After general agreement to the Roadmap on IDNccTLDs in June 2019 and to ensure support for submitting the Bylaw change process to include IDNccTLDs in the ccNSO, the proposed Bylaw changes, were again (explicitly) presented and discussed during the policy session in Montréal at ICANN66 (2019). At that time no concerns were raised with respect to the inclusion of the concept “territory” in the Bylaws nor with its definition (see: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/gGpcKnQbxfcJAvzKS (Presentation 2, Slide 21).
Taking into account that the introduction of the concept “territory” in the ICANN Bylaws and its definition are grounded in ccPDP2 as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013, its limited specific purpose, given there are no legal objections, and, finally, in 2019 and 2020 the community was extensively consulted and they supported to proceed with the proposed changes, the Council does not see any basis to make substantive changes to the proposed amendment of Article 10 and Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws.
Best regards,
Alejandra Reynoso
ccNSO Council Chair
--
[image: Photograph]
*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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:37 AM Alejandra Reynoso < alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> wrote:
Dear Patricio
This topic will be raised today at the council call.
Best regards,
Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:48 AM Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote:
Dear Alejandra,
I would like to know about the conclusion of this discussion, and whether the word "country" is still being deprecated and replace by "territory" in the proposed amendment to the bylaws.
Patricio
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 11:45 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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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 4th 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.
*T**he **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, 1st 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.
participants (2)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC