A complication regarding the recent Decisional Participant endorsement of the ICANN Boards modification to Section 18.7(b)
Greetings Katina, Within the last few hours, I have been contacted by Maureen Hilyard, Chair of the At Large Advisory Committee, that ICANN org has reached out to her regarding the ALAC’s final position regarding the Board’s action with respect to the change to Bylaw 18.7(b). She, acting as Chair of ALAC, on 20 September 2019 transmitted correspondence to both the Empowered Community Administration and the ICANN Corporate Secretary regarding the At Large Advisory Committee’s approval of the Board’s action with regard to the modification of Bylaw 18.7(b) that was requested by the ccNSO. The outstanding question is whether this submission of the ALAC’s position was “too soon”, and in contradiction to the language in Annex D, Section 1.4(a). It appears that it might be, and thus, at the end of the day, the ALAC may be considered by the ICANN Corporate Secretary to “have abstained” from a decision on this Bylaw change. If the ICANN Corporate Secretary determines this to be the case, it calls into question the validity of the correspondence that I sent on behalf of the Empowered Community Administration regarding the certification of the opinions of the Decisional Participants regarding the Board’s action regarding Bylaw 18.7(b). Technically, the Board’s action with regards to 18.7(b) should stand, as even with the loss of the ALAC’s support, there are still four Decisional Participants standing in support of the Board’s action with regard to 18.7(b), and none opposed.. However, there is no precedent for “corrective” correspondence from the Empowered Community Administration to the ICANN Corporate Secretary with respect to this matter. I have corresponded with the relevant ICANN org personnel that are engaged in this matter, and have (a) stated the obvious intent of ALAC to support this change to 18.7(b), and (b) urged them to seek a ruling from ICANN legal with regards to the timing of ALAC’s announcement of support for the Board’s action. I will keep you posted on developments as they occur. Best Regards, /Stephen
Dear Stephen, Thank you for keeping us informed! Are there any news regarding the issue? Frankly, I am surprised that if ICANN org believed the notice was sent too early, they did not inform ALAC about it in due time. This time it does not matter, but it might matter in other cases. They should have acted months ago. Secondly, I believe that the only thing that should matters is that the support is sent before the final deadline. The mere concept of “you supported it too early” sounds very strange to me. Anyhow, if – for some reason – ALAC’s early but otherwise legitimate support will be ignored, I think we must initiate another Bylaws amendment. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 8:15 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: A complication regarding the recent Decisional Participant endorsement of the ICANN Boards modification to Section 18.7(b) Greetings Katina, Within the last few hours, I have been contacted by Maureen Hilyard, Chair of the At Large Advisory Committee, that ICANN org has reached out to her regarding the ALAC’s final position regarding the Board’s action with respect to the change to Bylaw 18.7(b). She, acting as Chair of ALAC, on 20 September 2019 transmitted correspondence to both the Empowered Community Administration and the ICANN Corporate Secretary regarding the At Large Advisory Committee’s approval of the Board’s action with regard to the modification of Bylaw 18.7(b) that was requested by the ccNSO. The outstanding question is whether this submission of the ALAC’s position was “too soon”, and in contradiction to the language in Annex D, Section 1.4(a). It appears that it might be, and thus, at the end of the day, the ALAC may be considered by the ICANN Corporate Secretary to “have abstained” from a decision on this Bylaw change. If the ICANN Corporate Secretary determines this to be the case, it calls into question the validity of the correspondence that I sent on behalf of the Empowered Community Administration regarding the certification of the opinions of the Decisional Participants regarding the Board’s action regarding Bylaw 18.7(b). Technically, the Board’s action with regards to 18.7(b) should stand, as even with the loss of the ALAC’s support, there are still four Decisional Participants standing in support of the Board’s action with regard to 18.7(b), and none opposed.. However, there is no precedent for “corrective” correspondence from the Empowered Community Administration to the ICANN Corporate Secretary with respect to this matter. I have corresponded with the relevant ICANN org personnel that are engaged in this matter, and have (a) stated the obvious intent of ALAC to support this change to 18.7(b), and (b) urged them to seek a ruling from ICANN legal with regards to the timing of ALAC’s announcement of support for the Board’s action. I will keep you posted on developments as they occur. Best Regards, /Stephen
participants (2)
-
Katrina Sataki -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC