September 2016 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Wednesday, 21 September at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached 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 draft report (attached) -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds 4. Next steps to finalize the report 5. Schedule of the final meeting/call GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, 15 September 2016 Actions/Discussion Notes 1. DT to continue review of table and discussion of decision-making under various scenarios. · Summary of discussion on Scenario 1: Assume GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO, but without assuming the current default voting threshold (majority of each house). · Discussion of other voting thresholds for 3 types of Empowered Community (EC) actions: o Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc. o Approve decisions/actions available to the EC; o Exercise document inspection / investigation rights Action Items: 1. DT members should review the attached Council Votes Excel spreadsheet and add their own tests. 2. Steve DelBianco will work with staff to draft an initial version of the implementation plan to be sent in time for discussion at the next call at 1300 UTC on Wednesday, 21 September. Discussion Notes: Steve D.: Recap from 07 September meeting: straw poll suggests that we would proceed as if the Council speaks for the GNSO. Note that the DT could review the staff analysis use of "Council" versus "GNSO" in the Bylaws (see attached document). Steve M.: GNSO Supermajority - 2/3s of each House -- in the Bylaws. My constituency does not agree that the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO on non-PDP actions. I recognize that is a minority viewpoint in this group. Steve D.: I think the notes reflect that, but we have to achieve consensus in this DT. Correct: GNSO Supermajority implies Council. Suggests that there isn't ambiguity in the Bylaws, so that the drafters meant Council. Agree that the Bylaws seem unambiguous? Steve M.: Yes, where that is recorded. Steve D.: Given that we just have two weeks to the deadline I propose that the Council speaks to the GNSO. Now we move to the voting threshold for 3 types of decisions. If we come up with those thresholds they can be mapped to the Bylaws. Types of decisions are: · Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc.; · Approve decisions/actions available to the Empowered Community (such as a petition); · Exercise document inspection / investigation rights. Kinds of thresholds that could work: Default threshold -- Majority of each House including the NCA reps. Council has used the default rule for non-policy decisions. Investigate whether we want to recommend a different set of threshold that don't divide the world by House for these three categories because of the transition. Steve M.: There are 3 types of actions. 1) approving nominations. We first discussed this as a "who" question. 2) yes/no, or support/not support. 3) document inspection/investigation rights. There are several other places where the GNSO can act as a participant under the new Bylaws that are not necessarily EC activities. Inspection is one example, but there are others. Should we expand the third category? There also is 22.8 determining a credible allegation of fraud or mismanagement that a decisional participant can make. There are some others. Ed: Concerning the Decisional Participant I thought it was clear that this was the GNSO's representative to the EC. Steve M.: So 22.8, joint written certification, the GNSO signs on to a determination, but it is the constituents that determine that there is a credible fraud. You [question to Steve D.] would put that in a decision of the EC? Steve D.: Yes. Because a Decisional Participant is an artifact of the EC. On the first category I was saying that these are nominations resulting from the new Bylaws. Ed: 22.8 is a mixed bag. We have to act in concert, but we can institute it ourselves. We have to make sure we have a way to start the request for an investigation. Steve M.: 22.8 is another type of decision. I tend to agree that we could put it under the second type. Steve B.: Either way we need voting threshold for how to instruct the Decisional Participant representative. We still have to agree on voting thresholds that deviate from majority of each House, only for these kinds of decisions. Ed: You can add 22.7 to 22.8 -- says the "Chair" of the Decisional Participant that is making the request. It is outside of the EC. Steve B.: The EC is the sole designator and the Decisional Participants are the entities that participate. Is that right? Ed: We could have a Decisional Participant working outside of the EC, such as a document request under inspection rights. Steve B.: There are Advisory Committees [SSAC & RSSAC] that are outside of the EC and they don't have the right of inspection. David: I have heard nothing that would support a departure from the default role [GNSO Council deciding for the GNSO]. Steve D.: The majority of participants on the last call were in favor of moving away from a split House for nominations. David: Maintaining the principle of each House is paramount. There must still be a voting rule attached to each House. Matthew: We seem to be jumping into the exceptions to the default rule. Steve D.: The default rule is already baked into the Bylaws. Steve M.: Two other provisions I identified that might fall within the third category (yes/no decisions not necessarily within Empowered Community) : 17.3(b): determining method of review of effectiveness of CSC ; 4.3(b): GNSO as claimant in reconsideration/IRP. Farzi: Question re: NCA -- do they bring more balance to the decision? Steve D.: Balance would be for NCPH and CPH to have equal votes. Ed: From talking to people I’m not getting consensus on what the NCAs are supposed to do. David: I agree that the function of NCA is an open question. Steve M.: One element of accountability is the power to hire and fire. No group of GNSO can divest the NCA, so they are unaccountable. Ed: The Council also cannot divest a current member of the Council. NCAs are accountable to the GNSO or to the NomCom. Steve D.: We have divided views on NCA role and having them vote. Look at the test cases [see attached Excel document “Council Votes”] -- you could achieve a majority of Councilors (without NCAs) in several scenarios. Steve M.: One way to look at it might be to say how would the results be different as compared to the status quo? Test D: 58.3% "Yes" votes. Would not have a majority in each house. Same as Test E -- 10/2. Darcy: This is under the current structure. What happens if there are new Constituencies/SGs? Steve B.: Relevant, but not necessarily to this work. Darcy: Disagree that it's not relevant. Ed: As long as we keep the balance of power I am not opposed to not following the house structure for votes related to the EC. Steve M.: Darcy is right. If there are new SGs and Cs that could scramble things. Ed: I could live with a voting threshold model for votes within Council on EC decisions. David: I think we are overlooking the way the Council votes in different scenarios, looking at the threshold table, such as the GNSO Guidance Process. We need the fundamental fairness of the House structure. Steve D.: The GGP preserves the House structure. 2. Next Steps: Discussion Notes: Steve D.: We need to start writing. I will work with staff for a draft report in the next few days. We will need to discuss the report for two calls. Could be hard to get consensus. How many want to propose something other than a majority of each house? Steve M.: You have majority of each House or GNSO supermajority. Look at the test cases or the House structure. Steve D.: Here is our plan: Review the report on the next call. Determine how close to consensus we are. A description of the table would be in the report. We expect it could be a 4-5-page report. The goal to get it to you prior to next Wednesdays call.

1 0

first draft of our DT report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 18, 2016

Sept. 18, 2016

As promised on our last call, here’s a first draft of our DT report. We have only 2 weeks to complete our implementation recommendations, so it’s time to see where we can find consensus. DT members are invited to comment on how I’ve described our work thus far, but I do hope that you’ll focus on the last page — how we move towards implementation recommendations. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:36 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>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Subject: GNSO Council voting scenarios Drafting Team members: attached is that excel sheet I created to test voting thresholds other than the “default threshold" in ICANN’s bylaws: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. (Section 11.3 (i) ) The columns labeled “Test Cases" in this spreadsheet are there for you to contemplate scenarios where a majority (or even a supermajority) of Councilors agree, but where the "default threshold” could not be met. Have fun adding your own Tests! Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

2 1

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- call held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-implementation-15sep16-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 David Maher Edward Morris Steve DelBianco Matthew Shears Apologies: Amr Elsadr ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Michelle DeSmyter ** 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/dh2sAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 15 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/dh2sAw Steve DelBianco:notes from our last meeting are at https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/07-09-2016+GNSO+Bylaws+Implementa… steve metalitz:Steve was an excellent witness att he hearing. Congratulations. Edward Morris:Agreed. I was very happy to see Senator Cruz fall into a trap sprung by the magic Stress Test 18. Excellent work by Steve. Edward Morris:Completely agreeStee. Your information matches that I've received today from contacts i DC. Julie Hedlund:@Steve D. The deadline is in a Council motion, so it still stands unless the Council passes a motion to the contrary. matthew shears:thats good to hear Steve matthew shears:I think we have to move ahead with the focus on Council Edward Morris:Exactly Steve matthew shears:My prefernce is for as little change as possible - if we can port decision-making as it stands that is preferable. We need to have a discussions about whether it is appropriate and proportionate to change Steve DelBianco:Could staff please put 22.7 on the screen? matthew shears:decicional participants are the sos and acs Julie Hedlund:@Steve D: I'll get it up. matthew shears:I think that's right Steve Julie Hedlund:Sorry all, having trouble identifying it to bring up. Darcy Southwell:6.1(a) of the new bylaws? matthew shears:can we start by addressing the issues where the EC and Decisional particpants are clear - and then address those where they are not matthew shears:its a specific "exception" for that particular item I would argue matthew shears:+ 1 Steve matthew shears:we need to focus on the rule first and then the exceptions Steve DelBianco:Julie -- coudl you put up the table I sent you? Julie Hedlund:Sorry for the delay Steve. I lost connectivity. steve metalitz:In order not to further prolong this discussion I will just note here the two other provisions I identified that might fall within the third category (yes/no decisions not necessarily within Empowered Community) : 17.3(b): determining method of review of effectiveness of CSC ; 4.3(b): GNSO as claimant in reconsideration/IRP. Julie Hedlund:All -- the document is unsynced. matthew shears:appreciate the table - Steve - its helpful Steve DelBianco:Ed is right -- Council resolution for our reccomendations requires GNSO Supermajority matthew shears:they would not be there if they did not feel that they had a representative role I susopect Steve DelBianco:Question: does any other SO have votint Nom Com reps? matthew shears:We can't judge their accountability in isolation of their role - I suspoect that they would argue they are accountabile in some form or another Farzaneh Badii:I agree Matt Steve DelBianco:@Farzi -- guess we better add Nom Com voting reps to our SOAC Accountability discussions in WS2 matthew shears:disagree that directed = accountability Steve DelBianco:The Bylaws decribe it as "default threshhold" on page 68 of bylaws steve metalitz:@Darcy you mean new SG's or C's, correct? steve metalitz:@Ed I did not say you supported my proposal, and apologize if I implied that. Farzaneh Badii:Was this table sent to the list? Julie Hedlund:@Farzi: Not yet, but I will send it after this call. Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Julie matthew shears:I don't think we should be trying to solve the problem of confused councillors - isn't that out of scope Farzaneh Badii:Steve came up with the tests, based on different scenarios? Steve DelBianco:@Farzi -- yes, I just imagined some scenarios where a good majority of council might NOT prevail if we required majoirty of each house Farzaneh Badii:thanks Steve Julie Hedlund:@Steve D: Invented just last year. Steve DelBianco:(xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.(xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.(xviii) ApprovalofGGPRecommendations:requiresanaffirmativevoteof a GNSO Supermajority. Julie Hedlund:@Steve: Correct that it has not yet been used. matthew shears:Steve - the timeline is a massive bind - we almost don't have time to address options other than default - unless we can identify a minimal number of expcetions and work on those matthew shears:agree with the approach steve Julie Hedlund:0900-1030 next Wednesday Julie Hedlund:21 September matthew shears:can't we do thursdays this time? Farzaneh Badii:I think the tests on the table should be explained Steve . matthew shears:agree matthew shears:ah Farzaneh Badii:good. an explenation :) Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Steve. Farzaneh Badii:bye matthew shears:thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 15 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 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. 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, 15 September 2016 Actions/Discussion Notes 1. DT to continue review of table and discussion of decision-making under various scenarios. · Summary of discussion on Scenario 1: Assume GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO, but without assuming the current default voting threshold (majority of each house). · Discussion of other voting thresholds for 3 types of Empowered Community (EC) actions: o Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc. o Approve decisions/actions available to the EC; o Exercise document inspection / investigation rights Action Items: 1. DT members should review the attached Council Votes Excel spreadsheet and add their own tests. 2. Steve DelBianco will work with staff to draft an initial version of the implementation plan to be sent in time for discussion at the next call at 1300 UTC on Wednesday, 21 September. Discussion Notes: Steve D.: Recap from 07 September meeting: straw poll suggests that we would proceed as if the Council speaks for the GNSO. Note that the DT could review the staff analysis use of "Council" versus "GNSO" in the Bylaws (see attached document). Steve M.: GNSO Supermajority - 2/3s of each House -- in the Bylaws. My constituency does not agree that the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO on non-PDP actions. I recognize that is a minority viewpoint in this group. Steve D.: I think the notes reflect that, but we have to achieve consensus in this DT. Correct: GNSO Supermajority implies Council. Suggests that there isn't ambiguity in the Bylaws, so that the drafters meant Council. Agree that the Bylaws seem unambiguous? Steve M.: Yes, where that is recorded. Steve D.: Given that we just have two weeks to the deadline I propose that the Council speaks to the GNSO. Now we move to the voting threshold for 3 types of decisions. If we come up with those thresholds they can be mapped to the Bylaws. Types of decisions are: · Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc.; · Approve decisions/actions available to the Empowered Community (such as a petition); · Exercise document inspection / investigation rights. Kinds of thresholds that could work: Default threshold -- Majority of each House including the NCA reps. Council has used the default rule for non-policy decisions. Investigate whether we want to recommend a different set of threshold that don't divide the world by House for these three categories because of the transition. Steve M.: There are 3 types of actions. 1) approving nominations. We first discussed this as a "who" question. 2) yes/no, or support/not support. 3) document inspection/investigation rights. There are several other places where the GNSO can act as a participant under the new Bylaws that are not necessarily EC activities. Inspection is one example, but there are others. Should we expand the third category? There also is 22.8 determining a credible allegation of fraud or mismanagement that a decisional participant can make. There are some others. Ed: Concerning the Decisional Participant I thought it was clear that this was the GNSO's representative to the EC. Steve M.: So 22.8, joint written certification, the GNSO signs on to a determination, but it is the constituents that determine that there is a credible fraud. You [question to Steve D.] would put that in a decision of the EC? Steve D.: Yes. Because a Decisional Participant is an artifact of the EC. On the first category I was saying that these are nominations resulting from the new Bylaws. Ed: 22.8 is a mixed bag. We have to act in concert, but we can institute it ourselves. We have to make sure we have a way to start the request for an investigation. Steve M.: 22.8 is another type of decision. I tend to agree that we could put it under the second type. Steve B.: Either way we need voting threshold for how to instruct the Decisional Participant representative. We still have to agree on voting thresholds that deviate from majority of each House, only for these kinds of decisions. Ed: You can add 22.7 to 22.8 -- says the "Chair" of the Decisional Participant that is making the request. It is outside of the EC. Steve B.: The EC is the sole designator and the Decisional Participants are the entities that participate. Is that right? Ed: We could have a Decisional Participant working outside of the EC, such as a document request under inspection rights. Steve B.: There are Advisory Committees [SSAC & RSSAC] that are outside of the EC and they don't have the right of inspection. David: I have heard nothing that would support a departure from the default role [GNSO Council deciding for the GNSO]. Steve D.: The majority of participants on the last call were in favor of moving away from a split House for nominations. David: Maintaining the principle of each House is paramount. There must still be a voting rule attached to each House. Matthew: We seem to be jumping into the exceptions to the default rule. Steve D.: The default rule is already baked into the Bylaws. Steve M.: Two other provisions I identified that might fall within the third category (yes/no decisions not necessarily within Empowered Community) : 17.3(b): determining method of review of effectiveness of CSC ; 4.3(b): GNSO as claimant in reconsideration/IRP. Farzi: Question re: NCA -- do they bring more balance to the decision? Steve D.: Balance would be for NCPH and CPH to have equal votes. Ed: From talking to people I’m not getting consensus on what the NCAs are supposed to do. David: I agree that the function of NCA is an open question. Steve M.: One element of accountability is the power to hire and fire. No group of GNSO can divest the NCA, so they are unaccountable. Ed: The Council also cannot divest a current member of the Council. NCAs are accountable to the GNSO or to the NomCom. Steve D.: We have divided views on NCA role and having them vote. Look at the test cases [see attached Excel document “Council Votes”] -- you could achieve a majority of Councilors (without NCAs) in several scenarios. Steve M.: One way to look at it might be to say how would the results be different as compared to the status quo? Test D: 58.3% "Yes" votes. Would not have a majority in each house. Same as Test E -- 10/2. Darcy: This is under the current structure. What happens if there are new Constituencies/SGs? Steve B.: Relevant, but not necessarily to this work. Darcy: Disagree that it's not relevant. Ed: As long as we keep the balance of power I am not opposed to not following the house structure for votes related to the EC. Steve M.: Darcy is right. If there are new SGs and Cs that could scramble things. Ed: I could live with a voting threshold model for votes within Council on EC decisions. David: I think we are overlooking the way the Council votes in different scenarios, looking at the threshold table, such as the GNSO Guidance Process. We need the fundamental fairness of the House structure. Steve D.: The GGP preserves the House structure. 2. Next Steps: Discussion Notes: Steve D.: We need to start writing. I will work with staff for a draft report in the next few days. We will need to discuss the report for two calls. Could be hard to get consensus. How many want to propose something other than a majority of each house? Steve M.: You have majority of each House or GNSO supermajority. Look at the test cases or the House structure. Steve D.: Here is our plan: Review the report on the next call. Determine how close to consensus we are. A description of the table would be in the report. We expect it could be a 4-5-page report. The goal to get it to you prior to next Wednesdays call.

1 0

GNSO Council voting scenarios
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Drafting Team members: attached is that excel sheet I created to test voting thresholds other than the “default threshold" in ICANN’s bylaws: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. (Section 11.3 (i) ) The columns labeled “Test Cases" in this spreadsheet are there for you to contemplate scenarios where a majority (or even a supermajority) of Councilors agree, but where the "default threshold” could not be met. Have fun adding your own Tests! Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 15 September 1900 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Thursday, 15 September at 1900 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached reference documents and the notes from the 07 September meeting below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call/Statements of Interest 2. Review Agenda 3. DT to continue review of table and discussion of decision-making under various scenarios. · Summary of discussion on Scenario 1: Assume GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO, but without assuming the current default voting threshold (majority of each house). · Discussion of other voting thresholds for 3 types of Empowered Community actions: o Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, Empowered Community representative, etc. o Approve decisions/actions available to the Empowered Community; o Exercise document inspection / investigation rights 4. Next steps? GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday, 07 September 2016 Actions/Discussion Notes DT to continue review of table and discussion of possible approaches to the work: Consider direct decisions by GNSO member groups, instead of Council: · For Council, propose voting rules to approve nominations to PTI. CSC, Review Teams, Empowered Community, etc. · For Council, propose voting rules to approve decisions/actions related to the Empowered Community Discussion Notes: · Out of scope to change current Council voting rules, even for those decisions outside PDPs. · Ed Morris: o Based on Council discussions develop a unified appointment structure (all appointments -- not just related to the transition Bylaws); assume it will go through Council. Avoid different procedures for each appointment. o Consider the role of the NCA in appointments -- intended to be involved? · Steve DelBianco: Not out of scope to make recommendations for allocating authority not allocated to the Council in the Bylaws. Decision making methods for new opportunities, but not changing existing decision making; but if we come up with new methods we could consider applying them to existing appointment decisions. Straw poll on whether the Council should be the decision maker for the GNSO: · David Maher: Yes: only the Council has the power to vote. Use the current voting thresholds or new appointments/decisions; · Darcy Southwell: Yes: Should be the Council. Concern about SGs using powers against each other. · Steve Metalitz: No: The best solution is to figure out which of these new powers would be exercised by a group that is not the Council. The leadership of the constituencies and SGs should provide the basis for the alternative mechanism (if we don't use the council). · Ed Morris: Yes: Should be Council, but agree it doesn't have to be. If we go to another system we need to deal with the NCA, or say it doesn't have a role? · Amr Elsadr: Yes: Should be the Council, but agree it doesn't have to be. If we recommend using a different decision making body it should be justified. · Steve Metalitz: Role of NCA is to break ties in each house. They are not accountable to anyone in the GNSO. · Amr Elsadr: Notes that he assumes NomCom has other consideration other than just breaking ties. · Farzaneh Badii: Yes: Should be the Council. · Ed Morris: NCAs provide more than breaking a tie -- have a view of what is good for the entire GNSO. · Steve DelBianco.: If we use a majority house rule without the NCAs we will have ties. · Amr Elsadr: If we are using the Council to vote we could come up with new voting thresholds (not necessarily majority of each house). · Steve Metalitz: There are new roles; no need for a presumption of the Council as a decision-maker or the default thresholds. The problem to solve is that the Council was selected to manage the PDP, but there are different (non-PDP) roles. · Steve DelBianco: Look at two situations: 1) appointments to PTI, CSC, EC and 2) EC decision-making. · Ed Morris: Add Inspection / Investigation rights as a third situation as they are not part of the EC and have some special characteristics. Scenario 1: Assuming GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO as decision-maker, but without assuming current voting thresholds. 1. Appointments to PTI, CSC, EC -- Liaisons Option 1: Majority of Council votes (18 votes not counting the NCA, 20 if included) – Straw Poll: · David Maher: Should be majority of each house. · Ed Morris: Should be majority of each house. · Darcy Southwell: Should be majority of each house. · Steve DelBianco: Could give a weight to CPH. · Amr Elsadr: Should be a larger consensus beyond simple majority of Councilors, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to use the existing voting thresholds. Two-thirds of Council could work. · David Maher: Retain each house rule but a greater majority could work. Simple majority of Councilors could allow non-contracted parties to overwhelm contracted parties (fairness). · Ed Morris: This is a non-starter since it not likely to be approved by Council (particularly CPH).

1 0

RESULTS re: Doodle to Reschedule 14 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 11, 2016

Sept. 11, 2016

Dear DT Members, Per the Doodle Poll the best time for the meeting is at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT on Thursday 15 September. Staff will circulate a notice for the rescheduled call, and cancel the call on Wednesday, 14 September. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, September 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] REMINDER re: Doodle to Reschedule 14 September Meeting This is a reminder to take the Doodle Poll below if you haven’t done so already. The time that is looking the best is Thursday, 15 September at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT. Dear DT Members, Steve DelBianco has a conflict for the time of our meeting next week on 14 September. Staff have resurrected the Doodle poll for recurring meetings to see if other times in that poll might work. Please take the modified poll (dates and times eliminated where there was low availability/conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/g66p4xpynemz3m82. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 09 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 12 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER re: Doodle to Reschedule 14 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

This is a reminder to take the Doodle Poll below if you haven’t done so already. The time that is looking the best is Thursday, 15 September at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT. Dear DT Members, Steve DelBianco has a conflict for the time of our meeting next week on 14 September. Staff have resurrected the Doodle poll for recurring meetings to see if other times in that poll might work. Please take the modified poll (dates and times eliminated where there was low availability/conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/g66p4xpynemz3m82. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 09 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 12 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 2

LINK re: Doodle to Reschedule 14 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

[Resending with the correct link.] Dear DT Members, Steve DelBianco has a conflict for the time of our meeting next week on 14 September. Staff have resurrected the Doodle poll for recurring meetings to see if other times in that poll might work. Please take the modified poll (dates and times eliminated where there was low availability/conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/g66p4xpynemz3m82. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 09 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 12 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Doodle to Reschedule 14 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear DT Members, Steve DelBianco has a conflict for the time of our meeting next week on 14 September. Staff have resurrected the Doodle poll for recurring meetings to see if other times in that poll might work. Please take the modified poll (dates and times eliminated where there was low availability/conflicts) at: INSERT Please take the poll by COB Friday, 09 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 12 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0