[OFB-WG] Comment on proposed ccNSO changes to bylaws?

[Heidi Ullrich]

Dear Holly,

Thank you for reaching out to the ccNSO liaison and others regarding the end user perspective on the ICANN Bylaws Amendments: ccNSO-Proposed Changes to Article 10 and Annex B<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ICANN+Bylaws+Amendments%3A+ccNSO-Proposed+Changes+to+Article+10+and+Annex+B> .

Please could you confirm that the OFB-WG recommends to the ALAC that no statement is needed on this public comment?

Kind regards,
Heidi


From: OFB-WG <ofb-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of OFB-WG <ofb-wg at icann.org>
Reply to: Holly Raiche <holly.raiche at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 2:03 PM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
Cc: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>, OFB-WG <ofb-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [OFB-WG] Comment on proposed ccNSO changes to bylaws?

Thanks Marita

That was my take on the changes. And I agree - I don’t see end user issues that need addressing

Holly

(the interest for Australia is in how you define territory for the bylaws.  In fact, Australia has 4 ’territories’ that Australia’s domain administrator auDA does not cover.  So a careful reading of the bylaws raises some issues - but again, nothing to do with ALAC)


On Feb 16, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:

As I understand it, they have come up with an way of getting around voting imbalance if there is more than one ccTLD member in a country/territory by having the affected parties choose a representative, now call an "emissary". It is a democratic way to resolve things. I don't see a major end-user issue here.
Marita
On 2022-02-14 5:06 p.m., Holly Raiche via OFB-WG wrote:
Folks

The ICANN Bylaws proposed amendments to Article 10 and Annex B are  out for submissions, which are due 2 March.

The item is listed for comment at the upcoming CPWG meeting and we need to decide to decide how to report to that meeting on whether we believe we should comment and then advise ALAC on whether to make a submission and, if so, what it should say.

I’ve had a read of the document (see link) - and do not believe that it raises issues for end users.  However, I would like to hear from you on whether ALAC should comment on the proposed amendments and if so, what should we say.  Please get back to me soon so that, if we need to develop a response, there will be time to convene a meeting for discussion, draft a response and then conduct a vote

Thanks

Holly


ICANN Bylaws Amendments: ccNSO-Proposed Changes to Article 10 and Annex B<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ICANN+Bylaws+Amendments%3A+ccNSO-Proposed+Changes+to+Article+10+and+Annex+B>







_______________________________________________

OFB-WG mailing list

OFB-WG at icann.org<mailto:OFB-WG at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ofb-wg



_______________________________________________

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ofb-wg/attachments/20220216/336f63e8/attachment-0001.html>