October 2019 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
by Ariel Liang Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

Dear All, Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP…. There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66. In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow. Thank you! Ariel

5 8

Post Call | Joint ccNSO GRC and GNSO Drafting Team call | Monday, 21 October 2019 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 21, 2019

Oct. 21, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Joint ccNSO GRC and GNSO Drafting Team call held on Monday, 21 October 2019 at 12:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/IJcCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/_pUWBg>. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Fwd: [Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt] Meeting invitation: Joint ccNSO GRC and GNSO Drafting Team call / Monday, 21 October 2019 at 12:00 UTC
by Heather Forrest Oct. 17, 2019

Oct. 17, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, Much of our work is now in Council's hands. Our final task is to finish 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines with the ccNSO. The plan of action remains to try to finalise this work in time for document deadline for Montreal Council meeting (doc deadline is on the 27th I believe - by which point we'll all be getting ready to get on planes, so the timing is good). Ariel, Julie and I have invited GNSO Council leadership (Keith, Rafik, Pam) to the call next week, to get them up to speed as quickly and efficiently as possible. By way of reminder for all of us on the DT, the call details are below. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:19 AM Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt] Meeting invitation: Joint ccNSO GRC and GNSO Drafting Team call / Monday, 21 October 2019 at 12:00 UTC To: Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org <Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Dear GRC and GNSO Drafting Team, The *GRC teleconference with the GNSO Drafting Team* will be on 21 October at 12:00 UTC. *Agenda topics to include: * - Where are we (update)? - What are we are presenting to the Councils? - What questions do we want answered? *Call details: * Topic: ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee and GNSO Drafting Team Teleconference Time: Oct 21, 2019 12:00 PM Universal Time UTC Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/391688310?pwd=RWN3M1ZxTzBleVhWSTNHL1BxVlRPUT09 Meeting ID: 391 688 310 Password: 743930 **Please note this added security/privacy feature. Participants will only be required to enter the password if they are joining via the application and typing in the meeting ID manually. Anyone who joins a meeting via a link in a calendar or e-mail invitation will not be required to enter the password upon joining** Meeting ID: 391 688 310 Password: 743930 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aAAP6aGAx Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work
by Ariel Liang Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Hello Steve and all, Thanks to Steve for noting the substantive point and catching the typos/redundancies! I have removed the part after “proposed Petition” in those two sentences caught by Steve, as well as the same places in 3.1, 3.3, and 2.2/2.3. Regarding Steve’s comments about the timeline table, I resolved these comments as we are referring to situations where a notice must be sent within 24 hours after a decision has been taken and not to wait till the last possible day. Hence the day that Steve questioned is one day earlier than the absolute last day. Happy to discuss with Steve if the explanation is not clear. Best, Ariel From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:55 PM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work Mine was Section 3.3 guideline on removing ALL directors ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmam… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_open-…> ) I found two substantive concerns, which isn’t surprising since we just completed the drafting on this section. On page 7 and on page 11 we say: “…the GNSO Council will be deemed to have rejected the proposed Petition and the matter will be considered closed.” I am not sure the petition matter is closed if every other Decisional Participant supports removal. Perhaps we drop everything after "proposed Petition" in this sentence. I found a few typos/repeated phrases, and noted those in comments. We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October: FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to: • 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. • 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David). SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>). I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. Very best wishes to all, Heather

1 0

For GNSO Council Consideration October 24 meeting: Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community
by Heather Forrest Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Dear GNSO Council Leadership and Councillors, I hope this message finds all of you very well as ICANN66 approaches. I write on behalf of the Drafting Team tasked with developing Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community. This group was formed by the Council in early 2019 following on the earlier work of the Bylaws Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, which provided the GNSO Council with recommendations for necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws that were adopted in May 2016. These updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures were approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board in 2018. *What this DT has produced:* This DT has produced a series of guidelines and draft Council motion templates for carrying out the GNSO's responsibilities as an Empowered Community member: - Approval Action Community Forum & Decision Whether to Approve an Approval Action <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXc2TQCv4ArMo0LPzTrLncIG_JwSnuQqV05xvrA…> - Petition Process for Specific Actions & Rejection Action Community Forum <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9…> - Nominating Committee Director Removal Process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…> - SO/AC Director Removal Process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10…> - Board Recall Process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> - Independent Review Process (IRP) for Covered ICANN Actions & Community IRP <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZNl5YHegBUOK59QIcEV8BcMhDUgcuo88BO-3n-U…> The relevant Bylaws provisions underpinning these documents are quite complex, so the DT has put significant effort into producing plain English guidelines to assist the GNSO Council in fulfilling these provisions. Motion templates should provide a sound starting point when motions are needed, thus saving Council's time and effort. In many cases, the timelines associated with these Bylaws provisions are very tight; individual timelines are provided in the various guidelines to keep the GNSO Council on track. Still in progress, to be completed for Montreal: Special IFR Review Related Guidelines: One discrete element of our work has required close cooperation with our counterparts serving on the ccNSO's Guidelines Review Committee. It is the development of Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on the Initiation of a Special IFR, and the interrelated guidance for the GNSO’s input process. There have been several rounds of substantial revisions to the initial draft Guidelines text, with suggested edits from both the GNSO and ccNSO participants. Rather than deviate from its current work plan and momentum, the Drafting Team proposes to return to the ccNSO's most recent suggestions on the Joint Consultation guidelines, and the related GNSO input process guidelines, after today’s submission of its work to the GNSO Council in time for the Council's October meeting. It has been suggested that the Joint Consultation Guidelines could be symbolically submitted to both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils in time for their respective November meetings, so that they could be discussed in the joint meeting of the Councils in Montreal and, if appropriate, jointly agreed in Montreal. *Upcoming GNSO Council meetings (Oct/Nov): * I understand that the DT's work is on the agenda for the Sunday preparatory session in Montreal. If the GNSO Council further finds it useful, the DT will be very pleased to attend the October and/or November GNSO Council meetings to answer any questions or provide an introduction to the guidelines and motion templates. We will also be very happy to explain the involvement with the ccNSO in developing the Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on the Initiation of a Special IFR, and how this might proceed in Montreal. Suggestion for ICANN67 Public Session: We also suggest that the Council consider submitting a meeting request for ICANN67 Cancun for a public session (HIT or similar) to present the guidelines and templates to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Various of the GNSO's responsibilities as a member of the EC and a Decisional Participant involve some action that commences by or is communicated through or requires input from the SG/Cs. We believe that it would be helpful to clearly identify these to the SG/C communities directly so that they can reflect upon their own charters and internal procedures to determine if changes are required at the SG/C level (Bylaws, internal processes). We remain very willing to answer any questions that the Council may have about our work. Lastly, may I take this opportunity please to recognise the effort and commitment of all DT members and our outstanding GNSO support staff Ariel Liang and Julie Hedlund, to complete this work in such a timely and professional manner. Best wishes, on behalf of the DT, Heather Forrest DT Chair

1 0

URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Mine was Section 3.3 guideline on removing ALL directors ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmam… ) I found two substantive concerns, which isn’t surprising since we just completed the drafting on this section. On page 7 and on page 11 we say: “…the GNSO Council will be deemed to have rejected the proposed Petition and the matter will be considered closed.” I am not sure the petition matter is closed if every other Decisional Participant supports removal. Perhaps we drop everything after "proposed Petition" in this sentence. I found a few typos/repeated phrases, and noted those in comments. We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October: FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to: • 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. • 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David). SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n…) I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. Very best wishes to all, Heather

3 2

guideline on rejection actions
by McAuley, David Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Heather and members/staff of the drafting team: I did a final review of our document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9…> on rejection action sections (2.2 and 2.3 of Annex D). I made a couple of minor text changes as you can see in the document and asked Ariel a couple of clarification points - please take a look. Like the rest of Annex D, this document wades through pretty complex material. Upon reviewing it this last time, I came to believe there is a flaw in the bylaws respecting rejection actions. It does not immediately affect our drafting, that seems to be done correctly. But the operation of the bylaw provision seems unusual. My concern is this: as I read it, the period within which an 'individual' may submit a rejection action petition is 21 days (Annex D, section 2.2.(b)) but the GNSO Council must accept or reject that petition within the same 21-day period (Annex D, section 2.2.(c)(ii)). Our fix for this conundrum is to demand that the individual's petition be submitted within 10 days - see last sentence in paragraph 4.2.1.1 of the document. That gives the individual up to 10 days out of 21 in which to submit a petition and gives the Council as little as 11 days to act - that's pretty tight. And the 10-day limitation is justified, I expect, by language in Annex D, section 2.2.(b) that says that during the 21-day period an individual may submit a petition 'subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant.' Limiting the period to 10 days seems a reasonable 'requirement' to me given Council's need for time to act. But I wouldn't rule out an individual in future at least arguing that the 10-day limitation is inconsistent with the bylaw provision. Ariel asks a good question in the document - is 10 days to submit a petition too long? It is a tough balancing act but my opinion is no, it's not too long under the circumstances. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

1 0

PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work
by Heather Forrest Oct. 11, 2019

Oct. 11, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before Monday, 14 October: *FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER* in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular attention to: - 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (*SO/AC Director Removal Petition Review and Certification of Completeness*): Ariel has tidied up, and you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council leadership; Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well. - 3.3 - the revisions to 4.2.4 (*GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition) *to address David's comment to specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David). *SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER* in your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n…) I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7 October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the problem is. Very best wishes to all, Heather

5 8

Update to SOI
by Heather Forrest Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, For the completeness of our DT records, I would like to disclose that I have updated my SOI to reflect that I have been elected President of the Intellectual Property Constituency. Per the unique features of the IPC's Bylaws, I will commence in the role on 1 December, at which point I expect our substantive work will be done and behind us. Nevertheless, I believe it's good practice to be fully transparent and accountable about leadership roles. If you have any concerns (including for my sanity in the year ahead!), please don't hesitate to let me know. Very best wishes, Heather

2 1

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2019

Oct. 8, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel

9 11