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@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.

American Samoa (.as) would be in a similar situation as your Australian territories that have their own domain On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:03 PM Holly Raiche via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:

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@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 listOFB-WG@icann.orghttps://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.

_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list OFB-WG@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.

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+ICAN...> . 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@icann.org> on behalf of OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> Reply to: Holly Raiche <holly.raiche@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 2:03 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, OFB-WG <ofb-wg@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@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@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+ICAN...> _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list OFB-WG@icann.org<mailto:OFB-WG@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.

Actually I think that the comnments that were m8ade by Marita and Lianna were still valid and indicated that the document had been read... but we are still waiting to hear from Barrack. M On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, 9:03 pm Holly Raiche, <holly.raiche@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Heidi

I’ve just had a chat with Maureen - who would like a really short statement from ALAC - just to say we have looked at the statement, and are not commenting.

At the next meeting - NEXT week - the first item will be to finalize a statement that is to go to ALAC for a vote. The bulk of the meeting will then be back on Operating Initiatives.

After the first 5-10 minutes to finalize the response to the ByLaws, my idea would be to start with someone from Planning to go through how ALAC can comment on the Initiatives - and then do a deep dive into the MSM - what it means for us.

I”ll have more to say in a day or so.

As to the statement, my suggested text:

*Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ccNSO proposed Changes to the ICANN Bylaws. We have reviewed the proposed Bylaws and are satisfied that they will not directly impact on end users.*

So Heidi/staff - could you send an email to OFB WG members asking if they have any further comments to make (enclosing the link). Otherwise, we will confirm the suggested OFB WG response to be put to ALAC for a vote

Holly

On Feb 16, 2022, at 3:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org> wrote:

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@icann.org> on behalf of OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> *Reply to: *Holly Raiche <holly.raiche@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 2:03 PM *To: *Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc: *Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, OFB-WG <ofb-wg@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@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@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.