October 2016 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

Steve, Your email showed up for me just now (though I see you sent it over an hour ago). I’ll get this sent to Council right away. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team [ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors] Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

5 10

REMINDER: Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en%5d> Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

FW: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

FYI From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:08 PM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear Councillors, For easy access, the minority report has been published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> And can be directly viewed at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:47 AM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Minority Report for the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:18 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear Julie, Please ensure that the attached minority report from myself, Wolf Ulrich, and Steve DelBianco is forwarded to the Council lists. It expands on the minority views that were summarized in the Drafting Team final report, and also suggests an alternative to having Council speak for GNSO. Thank you. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com[msk.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.msk.com_&d=DQMF-g&c…> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

1 0

Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT
by Metalitz, Steven Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear Julie, Please ensure that the attached minority report from myself, Wolf Ulrich, and Steve DelBianco is forwarded to the Council lists. It expands on the minority views that were summarized in the Drafting Team final report, and also suggests an alternative to having Council speak for GNSO. Thank you. [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

2 2

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
by Darcy Southwell Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary. On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations. Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members: “DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.” Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters. Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears(a)cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section. Matthew On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report. This is on page 3: “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community." And this is on page 4: "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This could imply that Council is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters.” I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t? Thanks. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report. And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt

5 5

Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

[ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors] Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

1 0

LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Have heard replies from Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, and Steve Metalitz so far, so let’s allow another hour and a half for others. Unless there are significant objections, we’ll send our reports to Council today at 20 UTC. If DT members have minor edits we can forward those to Council at any time. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar(a)icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these docs. Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs: Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. (thank you!) As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director. I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column: 4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these sections: 17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision. While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT will understand what our recommendations are all about. That background takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1. I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion. Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and rejected). Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7. Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the recommendations, in my view. My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday. So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today. Thanks again for your serious attention to this project. —Steve

7 16

Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section. Matthew On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report. This is on page 3: “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community." And this is on page 4: "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This could imply that Council is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters.” I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t? Thanks. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.  Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report. And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).

1 0

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
by farzaneh badii Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Thanks Steve for pointing out to the procedure. But even if we have to explain the procedure, we need to do it in a way that is not biased. I am concerned that there is resistance to carry out the edits that Matt did. Those edits can result in a more impartial report. Can we create a balance like that? On 11 Oct 2016 10:15 p.m., "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: Thanks, Farzi. I just sent a reply to Ed’s email. As to your suggestion to drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). Per your suggestion, we moved the Evolution discussion to the end of our report. But as long as the above guidelines are controlling our work, we cannot simply drop that material from the report. Best, Steve From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM To: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" < gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I regret that I do not agree with sending his report to Council this > evening as proposed. Substantive matters relating to the report that > arguably may be supported by a majority of group members are being > discarded without adequate discussion, and a travelogue has been produced > that features arguments proposed by a small minority of members (1/3 at > best) rather than that proposed by the large majority (2/3) of members. As > to the later, please note the following word totals: > > Who section: > > Portions supporting majority positions: 203 words (29%) > Portions supporting minority positions: 493 words (71%) > > How section: > > Portions supporting majority positions: 122 words (34%) > Portions supporting minority positions: 239 words (66%) > > Cumulative: > > Portions supporting majority positions: 732 words (69%) > Portions supporting minority positions: 325 words (31%) > > > The Chair has produced a report that best represents a minority report > that acknowledges the majority position. This is compounded by presenting > in the document a large chart, introduced by the Chair, that was an > inconsequential part of discussions, receiving the support of only 2 > drafting team members. > > I understand that the nature of discussions my not result in equitable > volume in a travelogue. That is why we have transcripts and recordings: so > interested parties can take a look at the nature of discussions. That is > NOT the purpose of a report that is supposed to report the findings of a > working group to a commissioning body. > > David Maher’s position, represented nowhere in this report, during much of > the discussion consisted of few words: “out of scope”. A true and accurate > travelogue would have represented this view in parts of our discussion. > > As to a few specifics: > > 1. Any references to the views of individual constituencies and > stakeholder groups must be removed. > > No member of this drafting team was appointed by a constituency or > stakeholder group. We had a very long and somewhat contentious discussion > on Council about the representation of this drafting team. Each one of us > was appointed by an individual councilor with Council having the > opportunity, which it did not use, to alter the composition of this Team to > reflect the composition of the GNSO. Each member of this drafting team can > act in accordance to his or her own wishes. As DT members were neither > appointed nor nominated by their Constituency or Stakeholder group their > views should be ascribed to them personally rather than to any group they > may wish to be a part of. They simply were not appointed to this group in a > representative capacity. > > 2. This paragraph is simply wrong: > > ‘Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating > approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council > exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound > structure. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to discussion and > recommendations for voting thresholds by which GNSO Council should approve > nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.’ > > I refer to the word abstain, which in GNSO Operating Procedures §4.5 > refers to instances where a Councilor does not vote on a particular matter > or Motion before Council. The simple dictionary definition of abstain > (Webster) consists of two definitional possibilities: > > 1. to choose not to do or have something, or > 2.to choose not to vote > > The three DT members referenced did not abstain on matters before this > Drafting Team. They voted on where to locate the powers we were charged to > examine should be exercised and lost. They then participated fully in all > discussions, including voting on all threshold issues. That is not > abstention: that is full participation. That their full participation does > not indicate a reversal of their views on the previous vote which they lost > is quite obvious. One does not flow from the other. Nevertheless, I would > not be opposed to a small statement indicating same. > > > Let’s give Council what it asked for: an implementation plan. Towards that > end: > > 1. I support sending the Council our recommendations stripped of the > discussion. Recorded levels of support of every option, including all > thresholds in which votes were taken, should be indicated. > > 2. Parties should be invited to submit minority or concurring reports, as > indicated, to Council with the dicta currently contained in the proposed > report and anything else they may wish to include for Council’s > consideration. The current report is confusing for he uninitiated and reads > more as a minority report acknowledging the majority position rather than > as an accurate report of our implementation recommendations. That’s just > not acceptable given our charge. > > I should also note that the response deadline for approval of this report > is inadequate. This, in effect, is a consensus call and we simply have not > had enough time to hear from all of our DT members, many of whom are not > located in North America and have not had a chance to view the final > proposed document. > > > Kind Regards, > > Ed Morris > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> > *Sent*: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM > *To*: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> > *Cc*: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > *Subject*: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix > -- final version for DT approval > > Have heard replies from Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, and Steve Metalitz so far, so > let’s allow another hour and a half for others. > > Unless there are significant objections, we’ll send our reports to Council > today at 20 UTC. > > If DT members have minor edits we can forward those to Council at any > time. > > > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> > Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM > To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> > Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar(a)icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" < > gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > Subject: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval > > Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these > docs. > > Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs: > > Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. > (thank you!) > > As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined > Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding > recall of a GNSO director. I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT > Recommendations column: > > > 4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds > described in the new Bylaws in these sections: > > 17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require approval by a “simple > majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in > Bylaws Section 11.3(i). > > Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws require approval by > “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in > Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Five DT members believe that voting would occur > only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said > the entire GNSO should vote on this decision. > > > > While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I > am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT > will understand what our recommendations are all about. That background > takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1. > > I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added Amr’s edits > on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for > GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With those additions, I did not accept > Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for > non-policy matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an > essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion. Thing is, > readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this > “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and > rejected). > > Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7. > > Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but > this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high > level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the > recommendations, in my view. > > My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to > Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday. > > So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today. > > Thanks again for your serious attention to this project. > > —Steve > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list > Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt >

1 0

GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these docs. Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs: Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. (thank you!) As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director. I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column: 4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these sections: 17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision. While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT will understand what our recommendations are all about. That background takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1. I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion. Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and rejected). Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7. Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the recommendations, in my view. My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday. So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today. Thanks again for your serious attention to this project. —Steve

3 4