October 2016 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- 05 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- call held on Wednesday 05 October 2016 at 13:00 UTC at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-implementation-05oct16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Farzaneh Badii Steve Metalitz Darcy Southwell Amr Elsadr Edward Morris Steve Debianco Matthew Shears Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Apologies: David Maher ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Mary Wong Berry Cobb Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archive:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/ DT wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday, 05 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 13:00 UTC Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/lxK4Aw Amr Elsadr: Hi all. Amr Elsadr: WHEREAS: On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to "fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities";In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan "which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016";The DT submitted its report to the GNSO Council on [DATE] (also insert link to report when available);The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT's report; Marika Konings: The placeholder motion can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+… Amr Elsadr: I couldn't get the whole motion to paste here. Marika's post is a lot more useful. :) steve metalitz: Is there expectation that council will act on this motion on 10/13 after having had at most 24 hours to review it? Amr Elsadr: @SteveM.: I really doubt it. Will most likely be deferred. Marika Konings: that will be up to the direction that the SG/Cs give to their Council members - it is to allow the Council to act if it wants to, but depending on when the report is available, it may be more likely to happen in Hyderabad. Amr Elsadr: For one thing, the motion that created this DT also asked for a draft operating procedures revision to include the new bits that come out of our work. Marika Konings: @Amr - I thought that was part of the next step, following the completion of the implementation plan? Amr Elsadr: @Marika: Hmmm..., looking at the motion, I could see how that could be right. Marika Konings: It is also covered in resolved 2 of the placeholder motion: The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO, for the Council's consideration by no later than [the end of February 2017]. Julie Hedlund: @Steve et al., the document is unsynced. To make it larger use the plus sign. matthew shears: I can only be on for 30 mins Terri Agnew: Thank you for this Matthew matthew shears: can someone link to this doc here i the chat Julie Hedlund: @Matthew: It isn't posted. I'll resend it to the list -- it also was sent with the agenda. matthew shears: ah ok Amr Elsadr: Apologies Steve..., could you please repeat the question Amr Elsadr: ? Amr Elsadr: Why would the two thresholds be different? Amr Elsadr: Or why would they need to be? Farzaneh Badii: why super majority? Julie Hedlund: @Steve: Reconsideration. Darcy Southwell: I don't see why the thresholds need to be different for 4.2(b) and 4.3(b). steve metalitz: @Julie, if 4.3 does not cover IRP why is Standing Panel covered in 4.3(j) and (k) Julie Hedlund: @Steve M.: I'll read through it again. Let me see. Edward Morris: Agreed Steve Darcy Southwell: Agree also. Amr Elsadr: No objection. steve metalitz: 6.3(a) answers this question Mary Wong: Yes, certification Marika Konings: the Bylaws say 'GNSO Chair' not GNSO Council Chair Amr Elsadr: The GNSO does have a Chair. Amr Elsadr: as per the bylaws. Marika Konings: Exactly Amr Marika Konings: Old and new Bylaws say the same Marika Konings: with respect to GNSO Chair Mary Wong: Not providing a legal opinion here, but one reason against the "Chair as default" rule may be found in the next sub section: "In representing a Decisional Participant on the EC Administration, therepresentative individual shall act solely as directed by the representedDecisional Participant and in accordance with processes developed by suchDecisional Participant." Mary Wong: Again, it's best to consult Legal for a more definitive answer. Amr Elsadr: I'm good with simple majority. Darcy Southwell: Simple majority is sufficient. Farzaneh Badii: Simple majority is fine Marika Konings: @Steve M. that is the question - I'm not sure if it is the default if no certification takes place. Marika Konings: but the question is what happens in that scenario, the GNSO seat remains vacant? It is maybe not for now, but it may be one of the items that is flagged that will need further consideration to ensure there is clarity around what happens in a scenario where there is no agreement. Julie Hedlund: @Steve: It says "An interim Director shall hold office until the EC designates the Interim Director's successor." Terri Agnew: Welcome Wolf-Ulrich Amr Elsadr: Agree with Ed. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Hi, sorry just realized the call was on the wrong calendar matthew shears: Steve DB - apologies but as I have to drop off I wanted to note that I believe that the text you have proposed for page 3 to account for Steve M's position on the role of Council should not be included and that Steve M should have the opportunity if he wishes to write a minority view. Edward Morris: Agree withthis Steve. Amr Elsadr: GNSO's board members should be changed by the CPH and NCPH as suggested earlier, if a single GNSO selected Board Member is being replaced. Hopefully!! Darcy Southwell: Agree with simple majoirty threshold for interim directors. Mary Wong: @Steve D, that seems consistent with the Bylaws' treatment of Interim vs "permanent" Directors. steve metalitz: Art. 11 is current bylaws, we don't need to deal with this unless we want to amend. matthew shears: apologes have to drop off Marika Konings: the question is whether you want to call all this voting thresholds out separately that relate to the EC or whether only those that are not simple majority vote of each House Amr Elsadr: @SteveM: We don't agree that the GNSO Council doesn't have the authority. :) Edward Morris: That is my understanding as well Steve. Amr Elsadr: @SteveM: I shared my view last week - that changes in the bylaws are not required to allow the Council to pick up some of these duties. Marika Konings: it was something foreseen in the original tasking of the DT - any updates to the Bylaws and/or Operating Procedures needed to implement the recommendations of the DT Edward Morris: +1 Marika Marika Konings: as Steve DelB said :-) Marika Konings: and Steve M. is correct, any changes to the Bylaws would also need to be approved by the ICANN Board Amr Elsadr: @SteveM: From the current draft: "Other DT members disagreed, noting there is no direct prohibition of Council assuming suchduties. For example, the Bylaws state, "The procedures for selecting the Chair and any otherofficers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures"3. This indicates that the bylaws affordthe GNSO and the GNSO Council the ability to act in certain situations that are not explicitlydescribed in the Bylaws, but instead, may be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures. SomeDT members find that the GNSO Council making selections for the appointment of GNSOrepresentatives on Empowered Community, Customer Standing Committee, IANA FunctionsReview Team, and other review teams that will become part of the post-transition Bylaws isconsistent with this article in the Bylaws." Marika Konings: The ICANN Board has oversight over the GNSO Operating Procedures, but that does not require affirmative approval Marika Konings: In both cases, changes to the Bylaws and Operating Procedures, public comment is required before considering any changes by the GNSO Council and/or Board Farzaneh Badii: that's not a correct analogy Steve M. Amr Elsadr: @SteveM: The new bylaws give the GNSO certain powers that don't include sports drafts!! :) If they did, I would argue that the Council could do that too. ;-) Amr Elsadr: Or at least are not prohibited to do so. Mary Wong: To be clear, the GNSO can recommend Bylaws changes - as Marika notes, these need to be posted for public comment and approved by the Board. For Standard Bylaws, it's a 2/3 Board vote. For Fundamental Bylaws, it's 3/4 Board and EC approval. Marika Konings: as Mary said - GNSO would need to approve first before these are submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. Marika Konings: If I remember well, they are expected to do this in consultation (GNSO and ccNSO) Marika Konings: there is a detailed escalation process that was worked out as part of the CWG-Stewardship work Amr Elsadr: Thanks SteveM. Farzaneh Badii: yes Amr Elsadr: That's right Steve. Amr Elsadr: No objection. Amr Elsadr: What about the co-chair? Darcy Southwell: @Staff - will these items that filter into SG/C operations/bylaws be presented to them for further development at some point in the future? steve metalitz: Agree with Steve D that reps select co chair of IFRT Amr Elsadr: I have no preference really. Just want to be clear. steve metalitz: Let GNSO reps do it Darcy Southwell: Agree that GNSO reps choose co-chair. Edward Morris: Sounds good to me Steve Amr Elsadr: I have no objection to this. Marika Konings: @Darcy - I think that is a great suggestion and probably something staff can assist with.At the same time, of course, nothing prevents SG/C to review their procedures and determine whether any updates need to be made to reflect the post-transition environment. For example, many SG/Cs have directed voting - you may want to consider similarly like this DT is doing today whether on any of these actions need to be directed by SG/Cs via their Council members and how that would happen in practice? Edward Morris: +1 Darcy Darcy Southwell: No Edward Morris: We are already doing that in our NCUC Bylaws update. Marika Konings: that is correct - that is SG/C specific (directed voting or not) Farzaneh Badii: agreed! Darcy Southwell: Agree! :) Amr Elsadr: NCUC doesn't have Council reps, so no voting at all. :) Marika Konings: apologies, didn't mean to distract :-) Farzaneh Badii: nice and easy! steve metalitz: Can we set date/time of our next meeting before COB today so we can firm up our calendars? Amr Elsadr: I haven't, but am generally flexible on both days. Terri Agnew: doodle poll: http://doodle.com/poll/anesshhthq4cvzry steve metalitz: I think we have already addressed page 15 (inspection) with the addition that any SG or C can request. Marika Konings: Matthew Shears also wanted to flag his earlier comment in relation to the report: Steve DB - apologies but as I have to drop off I wanted to note that I believe that the text you have proposed for page 3 to account for Steve M's position on the role of Council should not be included and that Steve M should have the opportunity if he wishes to write a minority view. Amr Elsadr: I also wanted to note that I have some comments on the report, which I will send on-list. Amr Elsadr: I hope we can. Darcy Southwell: I think (hope) we can get this done in 1 more call. Farzaneh Badii: I will send my comments to the list as well Darcy Southwell: @Ed, Good idea. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: I'm confident to finish ISPCP internal discussion on time Edward Morris: OK Amr Elsadr: From what I've seen on page 15, @Steve: +1 Edward Morris: It looks great Steve Farzaneh Badii: yes great thanks Edward Morris: Thanks Steve Amr Elsadr: Will try Steve. Thanks. Amr Elsadr: Thanks all. Bye. Farzaneh Badii: thanks Farzaneh Badii: bye Julie Hedlund: Thanks everyone!

1 0

Reference Docs: Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 05 October at 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

All, Here the documents being discuss in the call now. Kind regards, Julie From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 05 October at 1300 UTC Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Wednesday, 05 October at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached documents from Steve DelBianco (also sent previously). Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 1. Roll call/statements of interest 2. Review agenda 3. Review the mapping document and note any DT recommendation where DT members would like to argue for a decision threshold that differs from what is indicated in the document. 4. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council.

1 0

REMINDER: Doodle to Reschedule 12 October Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear DT Members, Per Steve DelBianco, we are conducting a Doodle Poll to reschedule the Wednesday, 12 October meeting since that comes just before the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 13 October. We are looking at Monday, 10 October and Tuesday, 11 October for possible times. Please take the Doodle poll (times eliminated where there are conflicts with other GNSO meetings, or other conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/anesshhthq4cvzry. The poll is time zone enabled so that you can change it to your time zone. Please take the poll by COB Wednesday, 05 October so that we can send a notification by Thursday, 06 October. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 05 October at 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Wednesday, 05 October at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached documents from Steve DelBianco (also sent previously). Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 1. Roll call/statements of interest 2. Review agenda 3. Review the mapping document and note any DT recommendation where DT members would like to argue for a decision threshold that differs from what is indicated in the document. 4. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council.

1 0

UPDATE: Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 2, 2016

Oct. 2, 2016

First attachment is an updated draft report for our team. I attempted to capture our preliminary recommendations on pages 7-8. I noted that we could use 2 more weeks to recommend specific thresholds to some of the specific EC decisions and EC nominations. Council invited us to preview our report on today’s Council call, and they were glad to give us until 13-October to finish our report. In the draft, I also tried to reflect Steve Metalitz’ additional text in the discussion on page 3. LMK what you think. So, we need at least 2 more calls to finish our recommendations. We are on for Wed 5-Oct at the regular time (13 UTC). I would ask that staff circulate doodle polls for another call on either Oct 10 or 11, since our usual call on 12-Oct is just one day before Council meets on 13-Oct. Please don’t wait for our next call to weigh-in on the report. Our next step is to figure which of the new decisions need a higher threshold, and which of the nominations need a higher threshold. See 2nd attachment for the table of decisions/nominations we need to examine. Please review and note which decisions/nominations you think should require higher threshold than Majority of Each House Thanks for all the hard work, —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM 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>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 September. These high-level notes are designed to help DT members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 1730 UTC 1. Statements of Interest Action Item: Staff will check to see which members are missing SOIs and remind them to get them completed. 2. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws Decisional categories: 1. Nominations for GNSO representatives 2. Decisions made by GNSO to initiate or respond to EC 3. Decisions by GNSO on its own Action Items: 1. Staff will take the three decisional methods and array them against the instances in the Bylaws (mapping) -- functional recommendation. 2. Steve DelBianco will produce a revision based on the discussion. 3. Steve DelBianco will update the GNSO Council at its meeting on 29 September. DT has indicated that it would like more time – two weeks – to go into more detail on nominations and decision types made by the GNSO to initiate/respond to EC. Amr Elsadr: Clarification -- thought we were talking about last week was same threshold as for issue reports -- majority of one house -- for document inspection. Amr, Ed, David Maher -- decisions made by GNSO on its own to request document inspection: 1/4 of each house or simple majority of one house. 22.7(a) and (e): Any SG or C could make a request for document inspection -- wouldn't take an act of Council Ed Morris: Agreed. Saves time for the Councilors -- 22.7, page 118 -- references Decisional Participant. If that is Council then SG or C could request the Council Chair to do a document inspection request, but not a vote of Council, but keep in the option of 1/4 of each house or simple majority if the Council does it. Steve Metalitz: Support the first of the options, but not the second one. Don't support voting by house in the Council. Marika Koning re: NCAs: Couldn't do a document request if coming from SGs and Cs, but could vote if 1/4 of each house/simple majority. GNSO includes NCAs per the Bylaws. Mary Wong: Does this make the Council a mere conduit? Steve DelBianco: Yes if SG/C request, but not if the request comes from Council. Q: Any SG/C can exercise a document request with understanding that Council Chair would relay that to the DP? Vote: Yes: Amr, Darcy, David, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve M., Wolf-Ulrich, Steve D. Q: For Council to initiate a request: 1/4 of each house or simple majority of 1 house (Issue Report)? Ed Morris: If the NCAs are going to be participating it would be good if they had an avenue to request for Council to request document inspection. Also, if issues come up quickly -- allow more of a rapid response. Steve Metalitz: Can't support because IPC doesn't think Council should exercise these new powers. Vote: Yes: Amr, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve D., Darcy, David Abstain: Steve M.: IPC does not support council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. Wolf-Ulrich: Abstain because there are ongoing discussions within the ISPCP whether the council should exercise the EC power at all. Q: Decisions made by GNSO to initiate or respond to EC petitions, instruct GNSO EC Rep., initiate investigations (22.8) -- GNSO Supermajority (2/3 of each House or majority of other House) Amr: Desirable to achieve a high threshold, but haven't resolved the issue of NCAs. Might have to abstain. Steve D.: NCAs are part of the Council so not an issue here. Consensus policy if comes out of supermajority (staff confirm). Amr: It appears we are working on the assumption that Council will be the decision maker -- so would prefer a high threshold: supermajority. Marika: Supermajority is required for a consensus policy, but not everything that is adopted by supermajority is a consensus policy. Steve M.: Other things that aren't policy require supermajority. Worth considering if there is a consensus threshold, but don't know if that means GNSO Supermajority. Steve D.: Need to use existing thresholds as "consensus" doesn't have a definition. Using "consensus" as linked to in House voting. Minority report could come up with a different definition of consensus of SGs and Cs. Ed Morris: Can support the supermajority threshold if it gets us closer to a consensus decision. These powers will be exercised along with a lot of groups. Could be good to have a lower threshold -- such as simple majority -- for some things David Maher: I support supermajority. Darcy Southwell: Support single threshold. Wolf-Ulrich: Abstaining, but if there are any voting thresholds. Consensus is outlined in WG Guidelines. Need clear thresholds. Marika: At Council level there is no definition of consensus. But in the contracts consensus of the Council needs to be achieved and in practice that is supermajority. WG Guidelines: most agree and a small minority does not agree. Steve M.: The issue about maybe not everything should have the same voting threshold -- should not feel constrained to apply the same to all. Decising consensus policy just by voting. Steve D: Could indicate that we would like more time and go through each decision (in the staff table). Is there sufficient support on the DT that the threshold is simple majority or supermajority -- but examine each decision if we have more time. Q: Simple majority threshold? Vote: Yes, Amr, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve D No: David Q: Supermajority threshold? Vote: Yes: Darcy and David Abstain: Wolf-Ulrich and Steve M. Amr: Leaning more towards a lower threshold and support simple majority of each house. Marika Konings: Maybe you could note on this one that the decisions would need to be reviewed in more detail but it will likely be either supermajority or simple majority, depending on the 'severity' of the decision? Q: Nominations -- who will represent the GNSO? Marika Konings: the DT is also expected to develop/propose the process for the nomination process as well as decision ('The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws"). But that could be part of the implementation, not necessarily the implementation plan. Steve D.: CSC rep was already selected. Steve Metalitz: The appointment of liaison to CSC was with the specifc notation from at least one constituency (IPC) that our vote was not meant to imply support for Council as the entity to make that appointment. Thanks to staff for reflecting this in the record of this meeting. Ed Morris: Okay with simple majority. Don't want a supermajority -- 50 or 60 percent. Wolf-Ulrich: Depends on the importance of the decision. For review teams in the past this was done through SGs and Cs that then the Council decided in a majority. Steve M.: One size does not fit all in "who" or "what" decisions. Steve D.: Given more time might separate out types of nominations and coming up with a process. Farzaneh: These are different so I don't think we can go with one voting threshold. Amr: Agree with Farzi. Steve D.: Would like to map this to the decisions and might have a higher threshold. Q: Simple majority? Vote: Yes: Darcy, David, Ed, Steve D. No: Amr, Farzi, Matt Q: Supermajority? VOTE: No support Steve D.: No recommendation. Need time to look at each type of nomination individually as well as to come up with a process. Edits in pages 1-6 then Steve Ms edits Steve M.: Page 3 -- 6 people wanted Council and 3 did not. A: Council does it B: SGs/Cs do it. Steve D: Didn't preserve what to do if it was not in Council. Steve M could draft an expansive minority report on SGs/Cs doing it. Steve M: Then I think you have to change the sentence and take out the reference to SGs and Cs. David M.: Belongs in a minority report. (+1 Ed and Farzi). Out of scope. Steve M.: Think that responds to what is in C. Steve D.: There is some in B and C. Amr: Tend to believe all viewpoints should be shared, including conflicting opinions. Sometimes those are minority report. Sometimes there are part of the report (Thick WHOIS). Language seems a bit hostile to the Council doing this work. Re: Steve's recommendation - could be reworded or may need to be in a minority statement. What about the recommendation to do work -- either this DT or another group. Don't see the harm in having this report distributed to SGs and C, but the wording needs to be changed. Steve D.: Statement could be neutralized. Ed: Opposed. Should be a minority report. Darcy: Minority report. Matthew: B & C to minority report. Farzi: Minority report. Wolf-Ulrich: Support having it in the report. Amr: Depends on the text. 3. Next steps? Steve D. will relay to Council where we got to and request another two weeks.

3 7