September 2016 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

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

Doodle to Reschedule 12 October Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 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

MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- 29 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- call held on Wednesday 29 September 2016 at 17:30 UTC at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-implementation-29sep16-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 David Maher Edward Morris Steve Debianco Matthew Shears Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Apologies: Tony Harris 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 Thursday 29 September 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team call held on Thursday, 29 September at 17:30 UTC for 90 minutes Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6w_4Aw Amr Elsadr: Sounded like somebody was thumping a mic. :) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Hi all Julie Hedlund: Hi Wolf-Ulrich! Terri Agnew: New GNSO SOI: https://community.icann.org/x/c4Lg Terri Agnew: Missing SOI's : Steve Delbianco and Malcolm Hutty Amr Elsadr: Agree Steve. Edward Morris: Good idea Steve Terri Agnew: Welcome Matthew matthew shears: sorry about that Edward Morris: My position is the same as Amr here. David Maher: @amr +1 Edward Morris: yes Marika Konings: Note that in relation to nominations, 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") Amr Elsadr: There is an indication that Ed prefers that individual SGs/Cs may initiate those, and I would find that even better than a threshold similar to issues reports requests. Not sure how others feel about this. Amr Elsadr: @Ed: +1 steve metalitz: I+1 to Amr in support of Ed's alternative.... Darcy Southwell: I also support Amr, et al., on 1/4 of each house or simple majority of one house. Amr Elsadr: I would prefer SGs/Cs making those requests, but if that doesn't work..., then I'd opt for the 1/4 of each House or 51% of one House. steve metalitz: 22.7 references Decisional Participant Edward Morris: Perfect Amr Elsadr: Good idea, Ed. matthew shears: also OK with the 1/4 of each house or simple majority Marika Konings: where does that leave NCAs? Edward Morris: +1 Marika Mary Wong: Also, does this make the Council a mere conduit for this purpose? Amr Elsadr: Sounds good to me. Edward Morris: By allowing both Council and SG/C's both to request we solve the NCA problem. matthew shears: agree with Ed steve metalitz: or --- SG or C could communicate directly with our SO's EC delegate Marika Konings: maybe it is symantics, but according to the Bylaws the GNSO consists of SG/Cs, two houses and the GNSO Council which does include NCAs. Edward Morris: Agreed Syteve M Amr Elsadr: In the bylaws, the Council is part of the GNSO. :) Amr Elsadr: Technically, two of the NCAs are also part of the Houses, not just Council. :) steve metalitz: the bylaws set up council to manage the policy development process. Marika Konings: @Steve - I think that is what the Council tries to do in addition to its other work :-) Amr Elsadr: Issues report Amr Elsadr: It's the lowest existing threshold the Council uses. David Maher: @ed +1 matthew shears: agree with Ed Amr Elsadr: Nothing additional from me, except that I support this option as an alternative to the SGs/Cs. David Maher: Yes Amr Elsadr: @WUK: The comment along with the abstention is a habit picked up on Council, right? ;-) Julie Hedlund: @Wolf-Ulrich: would you mind typing your comment for your abstention in the chat. I didn't catch it. Thanks so much! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Abstain because there are ongoing discussions within the ISPCP whether the council should exercise the EC power atall Julie Hedlund: Thanks so much Wolf-Ulrich! steve metalitz: IPC does not support council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. Julie Hedlund: Thanks so much Steve Metalitz! Marika Konings: Supermajority is required for a consensus policy, but not everything that is adopted by supermajority is a consensus policy. Marika Konings: according to the contracts, consensus is reflected by a supermajority vote (but again,that specifically relates to consensus policies) Amr Elsadr: I was using the term "consensus" loosely, as I did last week. These decisions should ideally have a degree of consensus, as opposed to a simple majority beating a minority in a vote. That's the way I see it. Edward Morris: Agreed Steve Amr Elsadr: @Marika: I meant "consensus" not "Consensus". Apologies about any confusion I have caused. David Maher: I support supermajority matthew shears: lets not make this any more complicated given time and stick with super majority as a reflection of consensus David Maher: @ matthew +1 Darcy Southwell: I agree with one threshold - we Darcy Southwell: we Darcy Southwell: we're making this too complicated with multiple thresholds David Maher: @ Darcy +1 Amr Elsadr: If I'm not mistaken, a Council supermajority means 2/3s of both Houses or "an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and furtherrequires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 ofthe 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation". Did I get that wrong? Amr Elsadr: Sorry Steve. :) Amr Elsadr: @Steve M.: Right. Steve DelBianco: back to page 7, everyone Marika Konings: To Ed and Steve's point, the table that staff produced called out all the new responsibilities, so maybe there is a need to go through those to see if some of those are 'less big' things? Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: @notes: WG Guidelines: most agree and a small minority... Julie Hedlund: Thanks Wolf-Ulrich! Darcy Southwell: @Marika, that would be helpful - that's part of our challenge here with once size fits all guidelines for all 101 powers. matthew shears: may be appropriate Marika matthew shears: I think two would be appropriate at most matthew shears: if we go down that route Edward Morris: Steve, the earliest we can get this on the Council agenda is for the Oct. 13th call. I believe we could fit in another call - Marika can confirm. steve metalitz: @Steve, you should not apologize, you have done an excellent job under an impossible deadline. Mary Wong: Document deadline for the 13 October Council meeting is 3 October. Edward Morris: Not much time Edward Morris: Exactly steve metalitz: I thik we have another 35 minutes...... Julie Hedlund: The call is scheduled for 90 minutes. 3 pm I think. Mary Wong: Note that the 30 Sept deadline was for a draft implementation plan, this Draft Report is actually very substantive, so you can consider sending what you have as consensus among the DT by 3 October, with the understanding that work will continue (unless Council directs otherwise). Amr Elsadr: I would like to change my position to support the simple majority. Mary Wong: With perhaps an estimate of when the DT believes work can be completed. steve metalitz: Abstain for reasons previously stated Amr Elsadr: Honestly, I'm split between the two options. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: yes steve metalitz: yes Amr Elsadr: Was dropped off the call. Terri Agnew: calling back out Amr Julie Hedlund: @Amer: If you are split between the options are you proposing an alternative or can't decide? 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? matthew shears: I think that is a fair way of proceeding Edward Morris: +1 Marika Amr Elsadr: Also +1 @Marika. Marika Konings: To reiterate my previous point: 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") Marika Konings: but that could be part of the implementation, not necessarily the implementation plan Marika Konings: exactly :-) Amr Elsadr: Thanks for the reminder Marika. 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. Amr Elsadr: 60% of each House is what is used to elect the Chair. Julie Hedlund: @Steve M.: Noted and added your note. Edward Morris: And 60% of one house for Vice Chair Amr Elsadr: I need to check. :) Marika Konings: I believe it is in the operating procedures, not the Bylaws Julie Hedlund: It is in the Operating Procedures. steve metalitz: 60% and 2/3 are the same in CPH as currently constituted. It makes a diffference in NCPH. (8 v. 9) steve metalitz: +1 Wolf Ulrich that one size does not fit all in these"who" decisions" as well as the "what" decisions Edward Morris: I'm happy with that Steve. Farzaneh Badii: ok matthew shears: I tend to agree with Farzi - and agree Steve on possible higher thresholsd Amr Elsadr: Also agree with Farzi. matthew shears: I can go with simple now for so long as there is the option to adapt if necessary later Darcy Southwell: I think this goes back to prior discussions where applying a single guideline to so many responsiibilities is challenging. matthew shears: + 1 Darcy Farzaneh Badii: does this apply to IRP rep too? Amr Elsadr: There's an important nuance in terms of working out the process for nominations, concerning the process. We agreed that we can't work out a process at this point, but there are currently appointments that are done via the Council leadership. I'm not terribly fond of this process. Farzaneh Badii: I don't see that in the column Farzaneh Badii: no I mean the IRP rep Amr Elsadr: Thanks SteveDB. That sounds like a good way forward. Farzaneh Badii: thanks Steve. Happy with that solution :) Edward Morris: Thanks Steve Amr Elsadr: @Steve: There was also a recommendation that I would like the DT to consider. Amr Elsadr: Regarding follow-up on our work. David Maher: shoold be in minority report matthew shears: If we go that route then we should drop the a) that prefaces the sentence or drop the inserted text Edward Morris: +1 David Farzaneh Badii: +1 David Farzaneh Badii: that's minority report I think Darcy Southwell: I agree this should be a minority report. Edward Morris: Its almost a definition of a Minority Report. Farzaneh Badii: minority recommendation cannot be the whole DT recommendation. it is minority report! matthew shears: Agree that differences of opinion should be reflected but sections b and c on p 8 go far beyond that - as such they should be a minority statement Edward Morris: I'm opposed to hat approach. This is a minority report and should be labeled as such. Darcy Southwell: @Matthew +1 matthew shears: I don't think we have time to agree what neutralized looks like Farzaneh Badii: Yes Ed. it is not a set of recommendation from DT as a whole Terri Agnew: The next meeting of the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team will be held on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Julie Hedlund: Terri: That will depend on whether the DT gets more time. Julie Hedlund: it is supposed to complete its work by tomorrow. Amr Elsadr: Before we end the call, I'd like to know what plans we're making beyond this call? Can the DT continue to work, or do we need to hand off to another group? Amr Elsadr: We're certainly not done. Mary Wong: The 30 SEpt deadline contemplated a draft implementation plan, not necesarily a full set of recommendations. Edward Morris: I'll support two more weeks - but no more. Farzaneh Badii: implementation plan is gonna be developed by another group? matthew shears: we should prioitize thresholds over negotaiting on b and c in p8 Marika Konings: so you are not off the hook yet :-) Mary Wong: So, unless the Council directs otherwise, it's likely this team should be able to continue. Mary Wong: It may be helpful to provide an estimate of when you think you may complete all the tasks. Marika Konings: From the motion: As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. The GNSO Council intends to adopt any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO by a GNSO supermajority vote. Julie Hedlund: Will do Steve! matthew shears: thanks steve! Farzaneh Badii: thanks a lot Steve Amr Elsadr: Thanks all. Bye. Farzaneh Badii: Bye Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Thanks Steve Steve DelBianco: @Marika -- I already have that motion text on page 1 of our report. THanks

1 0

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt] Meeting Invitation: GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Wednesday 5 October 2016 at 13:00 UTC new date/time and Adobe Connect URL
by Amr Elsadr Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Hi, Yup. For those who are not listening in to the Council call, Steve DelBianco has bought this DT two more weeks. Well done Steve. Thanks. Amr > On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > The next meeting of the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team will be held on Wednesday 5 October 2016 at at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > > 06:00 PST, 09:00 EST, 14:00 GMT, 15:00 CEST > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/hn9s7da[tinyurl.com] > > NEW Adobe Connect room link: ADOBE CONNECT Room: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-bylaws/ > If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs(a)icann.org > Let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > Nathalie > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Participant passcode: BYLAWS > Dial in numbers: > Country > Toll Numbers > Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > ARGENTINA > 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA > ADELAIDE: > 61-8-8121-4842 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > BRISBANE: > 61-7-3102-0944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > CANBERRA: > 61-2-6100-1944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > MELBOURNE: > 61-3-9010-7713 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > PERTH: > 61-8-9467-5223 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > SYDNEY: > 61-2-8205-8129 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA > 43-1-92-81-113 > 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM > 32-2-400-9861 > 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL > SAO PAULO: > 55-11-3958-0779 > 0800-7610651 > CHILE > 1230-020-2863 > CHINA > CHINA A: > 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-712-1670 > CHINA > CHINA B: > 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA > 01800-9-156474 > CROATIA > 080-08-06-309 > CZECH REPUBLIC > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > 800-700-177 > DENMARK > 45-7014-0284 > 8088-8324 > EGYPT > 0800000-9029 > ESTONIA > 800-011-1093 > FINLAND > 358-9-5424-7162 > 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE > LYON: > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE > MARSEILLE: > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE > PARIS: > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > 080-511-1496 > GERMANY > 49-69-2222-20362 > 0800-664-4247 > GREECE > 30-80-1-100-0687 > 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG > 852-3001-3863 > 800-962-856 > HUNGARY > 36-1-700-8856 > 06-800-12755 > INDIA > BANGALORE: > 91-80-48030674 > INDIA > MUMBAI: > 91-22-49412807 > INDIA > INDIA A: > 000-800-852-1268 > INDIA > INDIA B: > 000-800-001-6305 > INDIA > INDIA C: > 1800-300-00491 > INDONESIA > 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND > 353-1-246-7646 > 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL > 1-80-9216162 > ITALY > MILAN: > 39-02-3600-6007 > 800-986-383 > ITALY > ROME: > 39-06-8751-6018 > 800-986-383 > ITALY > TORINO: > 39-011-510-0118 > 800-986-383 > JAPAN > OSAKA: > 81-6-7878-2631 > 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN > TOKYO: > 81-3-6868-2631 > 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA > 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG > 352-27-000-1364 > 8002-9246 > MALAYSIA > 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO > GUADALAJARA (JAL): > 52-33-3208-7310 > 001-866-376-9696 > MEXICO > MEXICO CITY: > 52-55-5062-9110 > 001-866-376-9696 > MEXICO > MONTERREY: > 52-81-2482-0610 > 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS > 31-20-718-8588 > 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND > 64-9-970-4771 > 0800-447-722 > NORWAY > 47-21-590-062 > 800-15157 > PANAMA > 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU > 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES > 63-2-858-3716 > 1800-111-42453 > POLAND > 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL > 351-2-10054705 > 8008-14052 > ROMANIA > 40-31-630-01-79 > RUSSIA > 8-10-8002-0144011 > SAUDI ARABIA > 800-8-110087 > SINGAPORE > 65-6883-9230 > 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > 421-2-322-422-25 > 0800-002066 > SOUTH AFRICA > 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA > 82-2-6744-1083 > 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN > 34-91-414-25-33 > 800-300-053 > SWEDEN > 46-8-566-19-348 > 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND > 41-44-580-6398 > 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN > 886-2-2795-7379 > 00801-137-797 > THAILAND > 001-800-1206-66056 > TURKEY > 00-800-151-0516 > UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > 8000-35702370 > UNITED KINGDOM > BIRMINGHAM: > 44-121-210-9025 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > GLASGOW: > 44-141-202-3225 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > LEEDS: > 44-113-301-2125 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > LONDON: > 44-20-7108-6370 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > MANCHESTER: > 44-161-601-1425 > 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY > 000-413-598-3421 > USA > 1-517-345-9004 > 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA > 0800-1-00-3702 > VIETNAM > 120-11751 > > <GNSO Bylaws Implementation DT.ics>_______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

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.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September 1930 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Thursday, 29 September at 1730 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached revised draft report for discussion as well as the notes from our last call below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll call/statements of interest 2. Review agenda 3. DT to discuss revised draft report as sent by co-chair, with edits from Ed Morris (attached) 4. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws 5. DT to hold a consensus call on the revised draft report 6. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC 1. Statements of Interest Action Item: Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so. Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability. 2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds Action Items: 1. Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the number (84). 2. Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss. Discussion Notes: Who should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies? · Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17 instances that were identified, not for other instances. · Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations. · Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC instances and others. · Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not limited to, the GNSO Council. · Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the Council does manage. · Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. · Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary. · Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph. · Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17 instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended." · Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it? · Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO. Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC? “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell “No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree. NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed: · Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles. There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have done, such as the GNSO Review WG. · Ed Morris: Agree with Amr. · Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues. · Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes. How should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house? · Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote. · Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing with other Council. Section 11.3. · David Maher: I agree with that. · Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member. · Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House. Doesn't include votes for the NCA. · David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme. · Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no". · Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no". · Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme. · Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines. · Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question. · Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support. · Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can. · Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an interesting and important option. · Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now. · Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time. · Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no". Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO · Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree. · Steve D.: Move into the second row. · Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low. · Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests. · Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about? · Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others. · Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second row is instruction. · Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority. · Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority. · Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M. 3. Timing of Final Meeting Action Item: Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28th and Thursday the 29th. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29th so this time slot will be avoided.

3 2

Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

DT Team — attached is a revised draft report, reflecting what I heard on our last call and the additional analysis provided by staff. Please review and reply with edits before we hold our next call in the week ahead. (awaiting completion of the Doodle poll on the date and time) Regards, 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: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:26 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: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September Dear Bylaws DT members, Per this action item -- Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for – staff has undertaken the following analysis: First, it should be noted that the original request was for staff to analyze the new Bylaws for instances of the use of “Council” or “GNSO Council” in place of “GNSO”. That analysis was provided previous and is attached again for reference. Staff found 17 references. Second, the request from the meeting on 21 September is for staff to ensure that all references to “GNSO” in the Bylaws are accounted for. That analysis is attached. Staff found 209 references (excluding in the table of contents). Of those references, 39 were in sections that only appear in the new Bylaws. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 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: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:45 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September Steve, Thank you for that helpful correction. I’ve made the change to the wiki. Kind regards, Julie From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:46 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September Thanks, Julie. I can correct you on the first straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC? “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii,, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell, Amr Elsadr “No” votes: Tony Harris, Steve Metalitz, Steve DelBianco (BC) Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree. 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: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:01 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 21 September Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 21 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC 1. Statements of Interest Action Item: Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so. Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability. 2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds Action Items: 1. Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the number (84). 2. Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss. Discussion Notes: Who should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies? · Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17 instances that were identified, not for other instances. · Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations. · Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC instances and others. · Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not limited to, the GNSO Council. · Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the Council does manage. · Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. · Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary. · Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph. · Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17 instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended." · Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it? · Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO. Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC? “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell “No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree. NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed: · Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles. There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have done, such as the GNSO Review WG. · Ed Morris: Agree with Amr. · Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues. · Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes. How should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house? · Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote. · Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing with other Council. Section 11.3. · David Maher: I agree with that. · Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member. · Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House. Doesn't include votes for the NCA. · David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme. · Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no". · Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no". · Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme. · Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines. · Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question. · Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support. · Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can. · Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an interesting and important option. · Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now. · Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time. · Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no". Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO · Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree. · Steve D.: Move into the second row. · Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low. · Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests. · Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about? · Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others. · Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second row is instruction. · Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority. · Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority. · Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M. 3. Timing of Final Meeting Action Item: Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28th and Thursday the 29th. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29th so this time slot will be avoided.

7 16

Fwd: Role of GNSO NomCom appointees in relation to the Empowered Community
by Edward Morris Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Fellow DT Members, ?I am forwarding this message, posted this morning to the GNSO Council list, from Council NCA's, past, present and future. ?Kind Regards, Ed Morris -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Role of GNSO NomCom appointees in relation to the Empowered Community Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:01:21 +0200 From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councillors, While agenda item 6 on our agenda for the Council meeting on 29 September, "Approval of Appointment of an Interim GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration" only seems to deal with the interim arrangements, we would like to take the opportunity to express our concerns over some of the discussions in the Drafting Team on revisions to GNSO Bylaws to account for participation in the Empowered Community. While we support the idea of the Council as the voice of GNSO in the Empowered Community, we note that there seems to have been proposals for alternative voting structures that would change the position of the Councillors appointed by the Nominating Committee. The current ICANN Bylaws describe the NCA members of the GNSO Council as "entitled to participate on equal footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected." Just as the NCA members of the ICANN Board, the NCA members of the GNSO Council fulfil a very important function in representing the parts of the GNSO community trough a wide community process that doesn't fall within the scope of the existing constituencies. This "none of the above" community should have an equal voice in decisions related to the Empowered Community. Therefore we want to make it clear that we can not support any proposals to alter the Bylaws in such a way that the NCA Council members would not have the same representation and voting power in matters related to the Empowered Community as they have in other Council matters. Respectfully, Avri Doria (Former GNSO Chair, while appointed by Nominating Committee) Carlos Raúl Gutierrez (NCA) Julf Helsingius (NCPH NCA) Erika Mann (Board Member, NCA elect) Valerie Tan (CPH NCA)

1 0

Results: Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear DT Members, Based on the results of the poll the most popular time was Thursday, 29 September at 1730 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice was sent earlier today for that day and time. If you did not receive the notice, please let me know. Kind regards, Julie From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] URGENT REMINDER: Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting Dear DT Members, We don’t have everyone’s response yet on the Doodle Poll. The time that is currently the most popular is Thursday, 29 September at 1730 for 90 minutes. Here again is the link: http://doodle.com/poll/z23h5rb99icgwfi9. Please take a moment to complete the poll if you have not otherwise done so. Thanks! Julie From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting Dear DT Members, Please take the Doodle poll (dates and times eliminated where there are conflicts with other GNSO meetings, or other conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/z23h5rb99icgwfi9. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 23 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 26 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

URGENT REMINDER: Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Dear DT Members, We don’t have everyone’s response yet on the Doodle Poll. The time that is currently the most popular is Thursday, 29 September at 1730 for 90 minutes. Here again is the link: http://doodle.com/poll/z23h5rb99icgwfi9. Please take a moment to complete the poll if you have not otherwise done so. Thanks! Julie From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting Dear DT Members, Please take the Doodle poll (dates and times eliminated where there are conflicts with other GNSO meetings, or other conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/z23h5rb99icgwfi9. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 23 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 26 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0