I think that’s right, Anne. Good catch. However, I would note that the below proposals are merely strawmen to facilitate discussion. Leadership is open to variations on the proposals based on Council discussion. Thanks, Greg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 5:32 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks Greg. Does Option 1 below include the second prong of the NCSG proposal? I believe that the breakfast meeting included specifying a time frame after which the existing ByLaws Specific Reviews requirements would kick back in if no alternative is developed in the "Review of Reviews". Option 1 now says, regarding the Review of Reviews, "until this exercise is completed". As far as I know, that differs from the breakfast meeting read-out and the NCSG proposal to the Council list. Thank you for clarifying, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:34 PM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>> wrote: Dear Councilors, In hopes of focusing our conversation re: Reviews and the pending ALAC petition, Leadership has gathered several potential paths forward, based on community discussions at ICANN83 and discussions amongst ourselves. It’s worth noting that even if the Council agrees on a preferred option, the path forward will be subject to ongoing Board discussion on this topic. Councilors are encouraged to propose alternative paths (or viewpoints) for discussion as well. Potential paths forward: 1. The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with Reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the initiation of all Reviews until this exercise is completed. (this option was discussed by the SOAC leaders at ICANN83 and put forth by the NCSG on list) 2. The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to change the cadence of mandated Reviews to alleviate concerns about non-compliance with current Bylaws and initiates a one-time review of all Reviews through other means (i.e., the review of all Reviews is NOT outlined in a Bylaws amendment). 3. The ICANN Board does not amend any Bylaws but continues to defer Reviews while the Community initiates a review of all Reviews. (this option is essentially the path envisioned in the Board’s resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...>) 4. ATRT4 is convened with the mandate to conduct a review of Reviews (although this would not be binding, and the ATRT 4 team would be able to change scope as indicated in the relevant Bylaws text). When considering the options, it might be helpful to think about what we are trying to accomplish. From what we have heard, these are the important elements: 1. Getting ICANN back into compliance with the Bylaws; 2. Initiating a review of Reviews sooner rather than later; and 3. Guardrails to ensure that any review of Reviews is completed by a certain date. If, after discussion, Councilors believe there appears to be a way forward (based on the options above) and it is not prudent to support ALAC’s petition, our next step could be a letter to the Board with our thoughts. If, after discussion, Councilors believe joining the ALAC’s petition is warranted, support can be gauged via a vote. From our understanding, the next steps are guided by the ARTICLE 4, 4.3/ANNEX D, 4.2 Independent Review Process<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/article-4-...> documentation, which can be found on the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures> page. It states that in order to determine whether the GNSO will support a Community IRP, the action ”will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3(i) of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold.” The document also includes a draft motion that can be leveraged. Also of note: we’ve allocated additional time to this matter at Council given the concerns cited by Anne and others. If a SG believes a special meeting is also warranted, please let Leadership know as soon as possible. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks, Greg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:14 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com<mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Many thanks Susan. This is extremely helpful. I think that given the support expressed for Lori's draft, the IPC should ask for the special meeting. We will also hopefully have a chance to consider a more definite alternative proposal to the ALAC approach which Greg says he will be sending. I share your concern that time is running out to request the special meeting. The introduction of a late motion at Council appears quite complicated in that it apparently must be accepted by all Councilors as appropriate for a vote. Is that how you read 3.3.2? (It seems unlikely we could get that agreement from all Councilors.) I wonder whether the IPC should go ahead and ask for the special meeting since there have been strong expressions of support for Lori's draft. It's possible that vetting of Greg's anticipated proposal at said special meeting could be persuasive to IPC members. A meeting early next week could happen if we request it now. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:57 AM Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all I thought it would be helpful for us to have in mind the timing on this, as we consider what the GNSO’s position is – I am not prejudging whether the GNSO supports the Petition: Thursday 19 June: The ALAC’s Petition was delivered to the EC Admin. Our time therefore runs from then, as Tomslin indicated. Thursday 10 July at 11.59pm PDT: The deadline for the GNSO, and other EC Decisional Participants, to inform the ALAC if we support the Petition. 24 hours later: If the GNSO supports, then within 24 hours of that decision we must notify the EC Admin, other decisional Participants, and the Secretary of that support. That notice must include certain required information including a rationale, point of contact, and whether we would like a public conference call before formal Community Forum. Our next Council meeting is on 10 July at 1300 UTC (0600 PDT). The timing is very tight, but if we were to hold a vote on this at that meeting and decide to support the ALAC it ought to be possible to meet the midnight PDT deadline later that day, and to give the necessary notice within 24 hours. We are past the documents deadline for our 10 July meeting, but the Operating Procedures s3.3.2 do contain a process for consideration and voting on a late-submitted Motion. The alternative if we need a formal vote, as Greg suggests, would be an extraordinary meeting before 10 July, but given that the US is about to go into a holiday weekend that may be challenging to organise. Damon and I hope to be able to share the IPC’s views shortly. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DBEF09.601318D0] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 02 July 2025 01:59 To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com<mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 This seems sensible. Thanks Tomslin. Best, Paul ________________________________ From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:47 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Hi Greg, The NCSG will NOT be supporting the petition. NCSG instead supports the following proposal: * The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; * With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. Remain blessed, Tomslin On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 16:52, DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>> wrote: Hi All, Do other SGs have a position here? If other SGs support the ALAC petition then it may be worth having an extraordinary meeting to determine if the GNSO as a whole supports (without support from other SOs, this petition will expire at 06:59 UTC on 11 July 2025, several hours after our next Council meeting). If there is not strong support for ALAC’s petition, I think we can forgo an extraordinary meeting and prioritize discussion of next steps re: “ATRT4 and Review of Reviews” in our next Council meeting. Thanks, Greg From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 8:48 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com<mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi All, Noting here that the RrSG understands and appreciates the ALAC concerns but does not believe an EC petition is warranted at this juncture (dialogue on how to best proceed is ongoing). Separately, Leadership will follow up shortly on next steps from a GNSO Council perspective. Thanks, Greg From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:58 PM To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com<mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. I think the ALAC faced a deadline to preserve the community's accountability position when there was no actual proposal in place for the Board to rectify the situation in relation to an indefinite suspension of Bylaws-mandated reviews. I don't see this as very different from action taken by the IPC when it filed an RFR in relation to the Bylaws issue on Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7. It is now incumbent on the Board and the Community to "get moving" on how this will be addressed. To my mind, it is incumbent upon the GNSO Council, after consultations with SOs and ACs, to write to the Board urging it to quickly address the proposed Bylaws amendment that would rectify the current situation, state a time frame and methodology for the Review of Reviews and a corresponding time frame for ATRT4 and other reviews to be reinstated if no new solution is forthcoming. (This is all as discussed in our Council wrap-up session in Prague.) In this regard, I note that the Board has the ability to request a GNSO Input Process and the Council has the ability to initiate one as well. We all need to keep in mind that any Bylaws Amendment requires sufficient support from the EC to be approved. Let's not drag our feet on this one. "Wait and see what the Board does" is an unhealthy approach and is not consistent with the MSM we are advocating in global fora (IGF is June 23-27.) Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 8:33 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Paul, We are also blindfolded by this as I don't recall this option ever being tabled. Personally, I am with you here on strategy. My view is that narrowly focusing only on the sole issue of the bylaw violation (of not starting ATRT4), and not the underlying problem of how reviews are done (including timely implementation of recommendations that come out of each review cycle before the next) is not the better strategy overall. I am aware ALAC argues that ATRT4 SHOULD be used for this purpose (of reviewing the review strategy), but since per the bylaws, we cannot pre-scope what ATRT4 can or can not do, I believe the risks outweigh the benefits here, since nothing stops any ATRT4 member from asking for a wider scope similar to ATRT3 or more, thereby putting us in the same position or worse. The option to first put together a community group with a predictable narrow scope to review the reviews strategy and how they are done, before starting the next review cycle seems to me the better holistic option. Remain blessed, Tomslin On Sat, 21 June 2025, 22:21 Paul McGrady, <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Tomslin. Anyone else feel blindsided by this? I thought the SO/AC leaders agreed in Prague to quickly work with the Board to get bylaw amendments in place so that we can kick off a review of reviews discussion while keeping bylaws integrity in place? Does anyone have any intel on why the ALAC did a complete 180 here? Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding the ALAC strategy - if it is to get bylaws in place and really fix the freeway pileup of reviews, then this was filed to make something happen that everyone already said they were in agreement to do. If this was filed to permanently calcify the ATRT pileup which isn't working, that is odd too since I don't hear anyone saying that the permanent pileup is a winning strategy. Clearly, something needs to change in how we are doing reviews, so digging in and taking the position "but that is how we have always done it" doesn't seem like a winning strategy for the ALAC or the broader community. I prefer our needle threading approach to this that we communicated to the Board earlier which boils down to: take the space you need to get this mess fixed, but let's get this fixed quickly and right. Attempting to spin up the Empowered Community for the first time over what boils down to a workflow issue seems a but much. Best, Paul ________________________________ From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2025 2:17 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Dear Councilors, As you will find attached, ALAC has initiated a Community Reconsideration Request Petition on the Board’s postponement of ATRT4. As a result, ALAC is seeking support from other Decision Participants of the EC for this request. According ICANN Bylaws Annex D, Section 4.3, the GNSO as Decision Parricipant has 21 days to decide if we support the request or not. This period began on 19th June. I will discuss with leadership on how best we can address this request within the time frame since our regular council meeting might be a bit late for a discussion. In the meantime, please circulate with your SG/Cs. Remain blessed, Tomslin ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jonathan Zuck via ECAdmin <ecadmin@icann.org<mailto:ecadmin@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 20 June 2025, 02:17 Subject: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Soac-leadership <soac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:soac-leadership@icann.org>> Cc: Christian Wheeler via ECAdmin <ecadmin@icann.org<mailto:ecadmin@icann.org>>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>>, Claire C. Craig <claireccraig@gmail.com<mailto:claireccraig@gmail.com>> Fellow EC Chairs and EC Administrator Please find attached the ALAC initiated petition for an EC Request for Reconsideration on the matter of reviews. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Chair, ALAC _______________________________________________ ECAdmin mailing list -- ecadmin@icann.org<mailto:ecadmin@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to ecadmin-leave@icann.org<mailto:ecadmin-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.
