Hi Greg,
It strikes me that in the absence of a concrete proposal for a way forward, the Council should in fact hold a special meeting to discuss the Petition and its position as a Decisional Participant.  This would give "due deference" to the EC process and to the ALAC as a Decisional Participant without a declaration in advance by each SG and C.  Then after a full discussion at the special meeting of Council, SGs and Cs could make their views clear (including in the July 10 Council meeting if necessary.)

It's important to be respectful of the EC process here, especially given that it's the first time it has been invoked.  Just as the Council discussed and weighed in on the IPC RFR standing issue, the Council should actively discuss and weigh in on the ALAC Petition.  I note that time is running short to schedule a special meeting.

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com


On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 11:49 AM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> wrote:

Hi Anne,

 

I wouldn’t say the RrS has a concrete proposal per se. But we thought the conversations in Prague were constructive and should be continued before the more dramatic step of an EC petition goes forward. In other words, we should continue trying to find a way in which concerns about non-compliance with the bylaws can be addressed while still going forward with a review of reviews.

 

Thanks,

Greg

 

From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 9:09 PM
To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>
Cc: 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.

 

Hi Greg,

Does the RrSG have a proposal for how to proceed in this area?  If so, it might help deliberations currently underway in the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:48 PM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> wrote:

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>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>
Cc: GNSO Council List <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

 

 

On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 8:33 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <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> 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>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2025 2:17 AM
To: GNSO Council List <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>
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>
Cc: Christian Wheeler via ECAdmin <ecadmin@icann.org>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, Claire C. Craig <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
To unsubscribe send an email to 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
To unsubscribe send an email to 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.