September 2019 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

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

Update of 2.2/2.3 & 3.1/3.2/3.3 Guidelines
by Ariel Liang Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Dear All, Following today’s call, staff have revised the proposed guidelines for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action), 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal), 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal), and 3.3 (Board Recall). In light of today’s discussions, the changes are mainly related to who/how/where a Petition shall be submitted, as well as clarification on when the clock starts. In addition, staff also revised additional sections to clarify certain GNSO actions. We would like to highlight the redline edits and comments in the following sections for your review: 2.2/2.3 Rejection Action: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… Sections 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.10, 4.3.6, 5.1, 6.1 3.1 NomCom Director Removal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 3.3 Board Recall: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 Please review these revisions and provide your comments/suggested edits, if any. Thank you! Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 26 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 26 September 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117608742. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal), 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? ACTION ITEM 1: On the issue of the definition of “individual” for the purpose of submitting a petition: Need to convey the depth of the discussion when presenting to the Council. Also link to the transcript. Also make sure the language is consistent in the motion templates. ACTION ITEM 2: On the issue of submission of a petition to a Decisional Participant and whether a petition can go to an SG/C: Add a note, "Such Petition can be submitted directly to the Council, transmitted through a SG/C, or through other channels. However, as per 4.2.1 below the date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Petition Period". Link to this transcript for reference in a footnote. Also make sure the language is consistent in the motion templates. Section 2.2 (Petition Process for Specific Actions) and Section 2.3 (Rejection Action Community Forum) 4.1 Who is eligible to submit a Rejection Action Petition to the GNSO Council? Per Section 2.2(b) of Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, “an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a "Rejection Action Petition").” “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council.” ACTION ITEM 3: Ariel will check Bylaws section 2.2(b) and circulate a note to the DT. She also will check the motion templates for consistency. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Heather Forrest has been nominated for the position of IPC President. 2. Continue 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…> 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? Three Points: 1. Individuals 2. Decisional Participant 3. Process if a Petition Goes to an SG/C – What To Do? 1. Individual -- Individual means anyone – not necessarily limited to the GNSO community. -- If it is an individual within the ICANN community, could be outside the GNSO community. -- Could it be an individual outside the ICANN community? The ICANN community is all interest registrants and users. So that’s not limiting. We’d have to say “member of an AC/SO” to limit things. -- Bylaws don’t allow us to define “individual” narrowly. Can be any person. -- Since we don’t have a clear definition, we should hope it is a human being – not a bot. ACTION: Need to convey the depth of the discussion when presenting to the Council. Also link to the transcript. 2. Decisional Participant and 3. Process if a Petition Goes to an SG/C – What To Do? “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to: 1) a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council; or 2) the GNSO Council directly.” -- Bylaws Annex D, 3.1 – needs to be submitted to a “Decisional Participant”. -- Have to interpret Decisional Participant as the GNSO. The functional body is the GNSO Council. -- The language that introduces the section – GNSO, ccNSO, etc. could come up with a procedure that the petition could be submitted to an SG/C, but how they choose to receive it is up to them. If it is delivered to an SG/C then that is when the clock starts. In the case of the GNSO, the clock starts when the petition is received by the GNSO Council. -- This opens the question of whether should be having other procedures? Do we want to say that the petition goes to Council and once it goes there then the clock starts ticking. Set up a special mail box that will send an alert to Council. -- Make it clear that if the petition is submitted to the SG/C the clock starts ticking when the GNSO Council receives it. -- Note in 4.2.1: “The date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Period” -- Revise 4.1 to say: “Such a petition must be submitted to the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant, to its representative body, the GNSO Council. This can occur via an SG/C or directly.” -- When we have a clause that says that delivery can go via the SG/C then that would start the clock. -- Change to: “If an SG/C receives a petition, that petition must be forwarded to the GNSO Council.” ACTION: Add a note, “"Such Petition can be submitted directly to the Council, transmitted through a SG/C, or through other channels. However, as per 4.2.1 below the date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Petition Period". Link to this transcript for reference in a footnote. Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specific Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… 4.1 Who is eligible to submit a Rejection Action Petition to the GNSO Council? Per Section 2.2(b) of Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, “an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a "Rejection Action Petition").” “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council.” -- Make consistent with 3.1? Yes. -- Note that the timing is different, but keep it consistent with the other guidelines and at Bylaws 2.2(b). ACTION: Ariel will check Bylaws section 2.2(b) and circulate a note to the DT. Also will check the motion templates.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/JpECBw> (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, Julie

1 0

Meeting invitation: GNSO Drafting Team call / Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

As discussed last week, I believe the clock should not start until GNSO Council receives the petition. So I am also aligned with Heather’s view. On 9/26/19, 10:38 AM, " Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" wrote: I like your interpretation and am in full support. BTW this again shows me that lawyers and techies are often following a similar logic in procedural matters ;-). To bring the interpretation of Annex D section 3.1 (a) to perfection we should be clear about the origin of the "individual". Is here a "GNSO-relationship" requested? Or could any individual with or without any DP-related affiliation submit a petition to any of the DPs? The latter may open the individual searching for the most likely "removal-friendly" DP. Am 26.09.2019 um 14:07 schrieb Heather Forrest: Reminder to all that we have our extra call this week (in roughly 9 hours). Our sole focus in this extra call is to reach a decision on how/to whom to submit a petition to remove a director. We need to interpret Bylaws Annex D in the GNSO context. I have read this again carefully and reviewed the recordings from our previous calls. Here is my interpretation as a strawman for our call: The language of Annex D section 3.1 ((a) "Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant...") tells me that the key terms are "individual" and "Decisional Participant". As I understand our previous calls, we all agree (in this contexts and elsewhere in our work) that "individual" means anyone. The term is not defined in the Bylaws. Then in Annex D section 3.1 (b), ("During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition..."), this tells me that the clock starts when the Decisional Participant receives the petition. Article 6, section 6.1 defines "Decisional Participant": (a) The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO (as defined in Section 10.1), the GNSO (as defined in Section 11.1), the ALAC (as defined in Section 12.2(d)(i)) and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants"). Annex D, Section 3.1(b) therefore can be read: "During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition), this tells us that the clock starts when the GNSO receives the petition." Section 11.2 of the Bylaws describes the GNSO as "consist[ing] of" "[a] Number of Constituencies"... "organized within the Stakeholder Groups". I do not understand 11.2 to allow us to interpret any single constituency or Stakeholder Group individually as the GNSO. Rather, the GNSO consists of all of those. Back to Annex D, Section 3.1(b), my view is that "when the GNSO receives the petition" means the GNSO as a whole, not any individual SG or C. For matters of the EC, the GNSO Council acts for the GNSO as a whole. Hence the clock starts ticking when the GNSO Council receives the petition. If the "individual" in Annex D section 3.1(a) submits the petition to something other than the GNSO Council, the clock has not yet started. That's not to say that an individual is prevented from submitting to an SG/C, but it seems to me that the SG/C is obliged to send on to the Council ASAP, without debate or discussion. Annex D doesn't give us any ground to enable an SG or C to delay or discuss, and further, "individual" means the petitioner, not an SG or C. I have copied the relevant Annex D section 3.1(a) and (b) below. For ease, link to the full Bylaws here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD Heather ARTICLE 3 PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISE OF EC'S RIGHTS TO REMOVE DIRECTORS AND RECALL THE BOARD Section 3.1. NOMINATING COMMITTEE DIRECTOR REMOVAL PROCESS (a) Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant seeking to remove a Director holding Seats 1 through 8 and initiate the Nominating Committee Director Removal Process ("Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition"). Each Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition shall set forth the rationale upon which such individual seeks to remove such Director. The process set forth in this Section 3.1 of Annex D is referred to herein as the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Process." (b) During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition (such date of receipt, the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date") and ending at 11:59 p.m. (as calculated by local time at the location of ICANN's principal office) on the date that is the 21st day after the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date (as it relates to a particular Director, the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Period"), the Decisional Participant that has received a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition ("Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioned Decisional Participant") shall either accept or reject such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition; provided that a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioned Decisional Participant shall not accept a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition if, during the same term, the Director who is the subject of such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition had previously been subject to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition that led to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Community Forum (as discussed in Section 3.1(e) of this Annex D).

2 1

Fwd: [Ntfy-gnso-bylaws-dt] **Reminder** Meeting invitation: GNSO Drafting Team call / Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Heather Forrest Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Reminder to all that we have our extra call this week (in roughly 9 hours). Our sole focus in this extra call is to reach a decision on how/to whom to submit a petition to remove a director. We need to interpret Bylaws Annex D in the GNSO context. I have read this again carefully and reviewed the recordings from our previous calls. Here is my interpretation as a strawman for our call: The language of Annex D section 3.1 ((a) "Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant...") tells me that the key terms are "*individual*" and "*Decisional Participant*". As I understand our previous calls, we all agree (in this contexts and elsewhere in our work) that "individual" means anyone. The term is not defined in the Bylaws. Then in Annex D section 3.1 (b), ("During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition..."), this tells me that the clock starts when the *Decisional Participant* receives the petition. Article 6, section 6.1 defines "Decisional Participant": (a) The Empowered Community ("*EC*") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO (as defined in *Section 10.1*), the GNSO (as defined in *Section 11.1*), the ALAC (as defined in *Section 12.2(d)(i)*) and the GAC (each a "*Decisional Participant*" or "associate," and collectively, the "*Decisional Participants*"). Annex D, Section 3.1(b) therefore can be read: "During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition), this tells us that the clock starts when the *GNSO* receives the petition." Section 11.2 of the Bylaws describes the GNSO as "consist[ing] of" "[a] Number of Constituencies"... "organized within the Stakeholder Groups". I do not understand 11.2 to allow us to interpret any single constituency or Stakeholder Group individually as the GNSO. Rather, the GNSO consists of all of those. Back to Annex D, Section 3.1(b), my view is that "when the *GNSO* receives the petition" means the GNSO as a whole, not any individual SG or C. For matters of the EC, the GNSO Council acts for the GNSO as a whole. Hence the clock starts ticking when the GNSO Council receives the petition. If the "individual" in Annex D section 3.1(a) submits the petition to something other than the GNSO Council, the clock has not yet started. That's not to say that an individual is prevented from submitting to an SG/C, but it seems to me that the SG/C is obliged to send on to the Council ASAP, without debate or discussion. Annex D doesn't give us any ground to enable an SG or C to delay or discuss, and further, "individual" means the petitioner, not an SG or C. I have copied the relevant Annex D section 3.1(a) and (b) below. For ease, link to the full Bylaws here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD Very best wishes, and thank you for your continued hard work, Heather ARTICLE 3 PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISE OF EC'S RIGHTS TO REMOVE DIRECTORS AND RECALL THE BOARD *Section 3.1. NOMINATING COMMITTEE DIRECTOR REMOVAL PROCESS* (a) Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant seeking to remove a Director holding Seats 1 through 8 and initiate the Nominating Committee Director Removal Process ("*Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition*"). Each Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition shall set forth the rationale upon which such individual seeks to remove such Director. The process set forth in this *Section 3.1* of *Annex D* is referred to herein as the "*Nominating Committee Director Removal Process*." (b) During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition (such date of receipt, the "*Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date*") and ending at 11:59 p.m. (as calculated by local time at the location of ICANN's principal office) on the date that is the 21st day after the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date (as it relates to a particular Director, the "*Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Period*"), the Decisional Participant that has received a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition ("*Nominating Committee Director Removal* *Petitioned Decisional Participant*") shall either accept or reject such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition; provided that a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioned Decisional Participant shall not accept a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition if, during the same term, the Director who is the subject of such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition had previously been subject to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition that led to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Community Forum (as discussed in *Section 3.1(e)* of this *Annex D* ). On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:47 PM Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find the meeting information below for the GNSO Drafting Team to > Further Develop Guidelines and Principles for the GNSO’s Roles and > Obligations as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Committee call on > *Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.* > > 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 23:00 Paris CEST, (Friday) 02:00 Karachi PKT, > (Friday) 06:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday) 07:00 Melbourne AEST > > For other times: *https://tinyurl.com/yyj4po7l [tinyurl.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_yyj4po7l&d…> * > > > > Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JpECBw > > > > Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp2 [icann.zoom.us] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_my_gnso.…> > > You will have VoIP and telecom bridge audio options available to you upon > logging in. > > > > *Slides to assist you with Zoom:* > > > > *Welcome to Zoom*: > https://icann.box.com/shared/static/1sal3l5qf4csdukt0pk2c75ey3bte22z.pdf > [icann.box.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> > > > > *Zoom FAQ*: > https://icann.box.com/shared/static/d5rap0g6xphevhkdd3mhu2hy753l2m3s.pdf > [icann.box.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> > > > > *If Zoom disappears, see instructions: *https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/presentation/disappearing-zoom-instructions-5jun2019-en.pdf > [gnso.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> > > > > A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox > doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as > attachment for you to download to your calendar. > > > > *If you are joining via audio only, please see below.* > > > > One tap mobile > > +16699006833,,5091335294# US (San Jose) > > +19294362866,,5091335294# US (New York) > > > > Meeting ID: 509 133 5294 > > Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abQBVd1jHM > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_abQBVd1jHM&d…> > > > > If you require a dial-out or to send apologies please send an email > request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org > > > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Julie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

3 4

Director removal timeline-block comment
by McAuley, David Sept. 24, 2019

Sept. 24, 2019

Dear colleagues on the GNSO drafting team: During yesterday's meeting I promised to send a note to list further explaining my comment in the google-doc with respect to the timeline shown in paragraph 4.2.11 of the director removal process (in this case referring to the document regarding NomCom director removal noted in Annex D, Section 3.1). Specifically, I was addressing the last timeline block dealing with 'Day 29.' (currently on page 10 of the google-doc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) All action-dates in the timeline are described as 'maximum dates.' Here is the nature of my concern. In this timeline we are telling the GNSO Council that the timeline may assist them in their efforts to carry out their duties with such removal petitions. In the final block (day 29) we essentially say that day 29 is the last date on which the GNSO Rep to the EC can submit a supported petition to the EC and others as indicated. I think that is a correct statement in theory, but it may prove to be incorrect in practice as an individual petition works its way through the process. Bylaw Annex D, 3.1(d)(i) says this, in part: (i) If the ... Petitioning Decisional Participant obtains the support of at least one other Decisional Participant ... during the [relevant week] ..., the ... Petitioning Decisional Participant shall provide a written notice to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary ... within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the support of ... [such] Decisional Participant. ... (emphasis added) Potential supporting decisional participants have a week to make their decision. What if the issue is an easy one and they decide in two days? Then would it not be the case that the GNSO Rep will have to submit the petition by the end of the next 24 hours - days short of day 29? If that is the case the GNSO Council might get tripped up by confusing the 'maximum date' in theory with the maximum date in practice in any one case. In other words, there may b e a difference between maximum date and required date. If this is a correct reading, do we want to somehow flag this potential for earlier action in the document somehow? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

4 6

Proposed Agenda: Extraordinary Drafting Team Meeting 26 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the extraordinary Drafting Team meeting Thursday, 26 September 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 – in particular, the issue of timing in the submission of petitions: 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

1 0

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] RESULTS: Doodle Poll for Extraordinary Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, Thank you to all who responded to the Doodle poll. Based on the responses, the preferred time for a meeting this week is on Thursday, 26 September at 21:00 UTC. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 at 12:26 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] REMINDER - RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Extraordinary Meeting Dear all, This is a reminder. Per the action items below, please take the Doodle poll at https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/gq3mfqxw3h5pffw3 [icannorg.doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_po…> not later than COB TODAY Friday, 20 September to schedule an extraordinary meeting next week to complete the discussion on guidelines 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:17 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 18 September at 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 18 September 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117604965. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 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. Staff to send a Doodle Poll to schedule an extraordinary meeting for next week to discuss the issue of the timing in the submission of petitions. All DT members are encouraged to attend if possible. 2. DT members to finalize review of the documents and any comments/edits. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Heather Forrest has been nominated for the position of IPC President. 2. Continue 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…> Section 4.1, top of page 5: -- Revised language on who can submit the petition: suggested language from the meeting: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to: 1) a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council; or 2) the GNSO Council directly.” The DT put in the language of the possibility of both options. -- If a constituency drags its feet before submitting to Council, I still think we start the clock for Council when Council gets it. -- It’s possible that a constituency will decide NOT too forward to Council. They may just disagree. Then the individualizing can go direct to Council. -- Come back to this issue when we cover a similar section in 3.2. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, page 6: -- Redlined changes relating to invitations. Suggestion from Steve DelBianco: Delete the word “all” in “all invited parties”. We have to have all four parties, to leave as is. GNSO Corporate Secretary is not a crucial participant. 4.2.7, page 8: -- Previously we asked whether the Council had to give a rationale for its decision, but we realized that when the petition becomes a Supported Petition there has to be a rationale for why it’s support. So we need to record why the Council supported the petitioner. The same applies to a rejection action petition. -- Add “such rationale would be required were the petition is accepted by other EC members)”. 4.2.11, pages 10-11: -- Change from Heather – “no later than” – suggest we don’t need the language since the table assumes this. -- Day 29: Comment from David McCauley: Two concerns here. First, day 29 is the latest day this can be submitted – it might be required earlier, even much earlier as the operative language for submission in bylaw D.3.1(d)(i) is “…within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the support …” Second, the other decisional participant (the supporting one) also needs to provide such notice within the same time – do we want to mention that? -- Per my understanding of the Bylaws, any Decisional Participant that expresses support must provide a written notice no later than the 28th day after the Petition Date. That's the official deadline for the Petition Support Period as per Bylaws. I don't think the GNSO can ask the other Decisional Participants that they must make such decision earlier than Day 28, as the other Decisional Participants have the right to take their time to make such decision. Hence, I think the GNSO cannot expect to submit the Supported Petition earlier than Day 29. Regarding the Supporting Decisional Participants providing a notice on Day 28, I added some text to this effect in the table. 4.3.1, pages 11-12: Minor text change to “promptly” from “immediately.” 4.3.3, pages 11-12: -- Change to: “When sending requests for feedback, the GNSO Secretariat may also post the recording and transcript, if available from the Petitioning Decisional Participant, of the dialogue regarding the Nominating Committee Director Removal to the mailing lists of the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies.” 4.3.4, page 12: -- Keep the explicit list or use the shorthand? (“all invited parties”). 4.3.5, page 13: -- Spell out what is required for someone to support a petition – repeating the requirements from the Bylaws. 5.2.1, page 15: Re-ordering the paragraphs consistent with other guidelines. 5.3, page 16: Added language from the Bylaws: “If the GNSO Council has not reached a decision regarding the removal of such Director, the GNSO Council will be deemed to have abstained from the Supported Petition.” Motion Templates -- Pages 18 and 19: -- Noted discrepancy in the Bylaws in the use of the term “Petitioned” and “Petitioning”. The language is from the Bylaws; alert ICANN Org to the discrepancy. -- Open questions relating to where the petition comes from and how they get passed through. Hold for discussion on 3.2 guidelines. 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. Bylaws and Additional Proposed Steps, page 3: -- Changed to “and/or GNSO” in the second column to reflect the Bylaws. -- Eliminate the related comment. 4.1, page 4: -- Quote directly the relevant sections of the Bylaws. Who can submit: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to the GNSO Council directly. If the GNSO Council deems that the petition has met the requirements for consideration (see Section 4.2.2 of the Guidelines), the House that appointed the applicable Director holding Seat 13 or 14 shall submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council.” -- This is a difficult area. Like that there should be a well-publicized address for someone to write to. Bylaws say that an individual can submit a petition to a Decision Participant, but the Decision Participant can set the procedures for how to address the petition. The Bylaws are expecting a quick adjudication. The clock is ticking. To whomever the petition is submitted that starts the clock. -- Alternatively, the Bylaws could be saying that the clock starts when the Decision Participant receives the petition. Limited ability to come up with rules to tell a constituency how to handle petitions, but we can develop procedures for Council. -- Cannot force an SG/C to do a particular thing, we can require them to comply with the timeline/actions of the Council, they can’t delay or obfuscate the role of the Council in the Bylaws. -- When we get together with the SGs/Cs in Cancun, we say “here’s the stuff that you will have to do so that the Council can comply”. Highlight this, that if you receive a petition it has to be promptly passed on. -- Article 3, annex D: Says that an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant subject to the procedures of the Decisional Participant. This is a new right. ACTION: Staff will set up a doodle for a small group meeting.

1 0

REMINDER - RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Extraordinary Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 20, 2019

Sept. 20, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder. Per the action items below, please take the Doodle poll at https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/gq3mfqxw3h5pffw3 [icannorg.doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_po…> not later than COB TODAY Friday, 20 September to schedule an extraordinary meeting next week to complete the discussion on guidelines 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 6:17 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 18 September at 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 18 September 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117604965. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 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. Staff to send a Doodle Poll to schedule an extraordinary meeting for next week to discuss the issue of the timing in the submission of petitions. All DT members are encouraged to attend if possible. 2. DT members to finalize review of the documents and any comments/edits. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Heather Forrest has been nominated for the position of IPC President. 2. Continue 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…> Section 4.1, top of page 5: -- Revised language on who can submit the petition: suggested language from the meeting: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to: 1) a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council; or 2) the GNSO Council directly.” The DT put in the language of the possibility of both options. -- If a constituency drags its feet before submitting to Council, I still think we start the clock for Council when Council gets it. -- It’s possible that a constituency will decide NOT too forward to Council. They may just disagree. Then the individualizing can go direct to Council. -- Come back to this issue when we cover a similar section in 3.2. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, page 6: -- Redlined changes relating to invitations. Suggestion from Steve DelBianco: Delete the word “all” in “all invited parties”. We have to have all four parties, to leave as is. GNSO Corporate Secretary is not a crucial participant. 4.2.7, page 8: -- Previously we asked whether the Council had to give a rationale for its decision, but we realized that when the petition becomes a Supported Petition there has to be a rationale for why it’s support. So we need to record why the Council supported the petitioner. The same applies to a rejection action petition. -- Add “such rationale would be required were the petition is accepted by other EC members)”. 4.2.11, pages 10-11: -- Change from Heather – “no later than” – suggest we don’t need the language since the table assumes this. -- Day 29: Comment from David McCauley: Two concerns here. First, day 29 is the latest day this can be submitted – it might be required earlier, even much earlier as the operative language for submission in bylaw D.3.1(d)(i) is “…within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the support …” Second, the other decisional participant (the supporting one) also needs to provide such notice within the same time – do we want to mention that? -- Per my understanding of the Bylaws, any Decisional Participant that expresses support must provide a written notice no later than the 28th day after the Petition Date. That's the official deadline for the Petition Support Period as per Bylaws. I don't think the GNSO can ask the other Decisional Participants that they must make such decision earlier than Day 28, as the other Decisional Participants have the right to take their time to make such decision. Hence, I think the GNSO cannot expect to submit the Supported Petition earlier than Day 29. Regarding the Supporting Decisional Participants providing a notice on Day 28, I added some text to this effect in the table. 4.3.1, pages 11-12: Minor text change to “promptly” from “immediately.” 4.3.3, pages 11-12: -- Change to: “When sending requests for feedback, the GNSO Secretariat may also post the recording and transcript, if available from the Petitioning Decisional Participant, of the dialogue regarding the Nominating Committee Director Removal to the mailing lists of the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies.” 4.3.4, page 12: -- Keep the explicit list or use the shorthand? (“all invited parties”). 4.3.5, page 13: -- Spell out what is required for someone to support a petition – repeating the requirements from the Bylaws. 5.2.1, page 15: Re-ordering the paragraphs consistent with other guidelines. 5.3, page 16: Added language from the Bylaws: “If the GNSO Council has not reached a decision regarding the removal of such Director, the GNSO Council will be deemed to have abstained from the Supported Petition.” Motion Templates -- Pages 18 and 19: -- Noted discrepancy in the Bylaws in the use of the term “Petitioned” and “Petitioning”. The language is from the Bylaws; alert ICANN Org to the discrepancy. -- Open questions relating to where the petition comes from and how they get passed through. Hold for discussion on 3.2 guidelines. 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. Bylaws and Additional Proposed Steps, page 3: -- Changed to “and/or GNSO” in the second column to reflect the Bylaws. -- Eliminate the related comment. 4.1, page 4: -- Quote directly the relevant sections of the Bylaws. Who can submit: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to the GNSO Council directly. If the GNSO Council deems that the petition has met the requirements for consideration (see Section 4.2.2 of the Guidelines), the House that appointed the applicable Director holding Seat 13 or 14 shall submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council.” -- This is a difficult area. Like that there should be a well-publicized address for someone to write to. Bylaws say that an individual can submit a petition to a Decision Participant, but the Decision Participant can set the procedures for how to address the petition. The Bylaws are expecting a quick adjudication. The clock is ticking. To whomever the petition is submitted that starts the clock. -- Alternatively, the Bylaws could be saying that the clock starts when the Decision Participant receives the petition. Limited ability to come up with rules to tell a constituency how to handle petitions, but we can develop procedures for Council. -- Cannot force an SG/C to do a particular thing, we can require them to comply with the timeline/actions of the Council, they can’t delay or obfuscate the role of the Council in the Bylaws. -- When we get together with the SGs/Cs in Cancun, we say “here’s the stuff that you will have to do so that the Council can comply”. Highlight this, that if you receive a petition it has to be promptly passed on. -- Article 3, annex D: Says that an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant subject to the procedures of the Decisional Participant. This is a new right. ACTION: Staff will set up a doodle for a small group meeting.

1 0