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.

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

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.

---------- 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>

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.

_______________________________________________
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.