September 2019 - Gnso-bylaws-dt

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Extraordinary Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

Dear all, Per the action items below, please take the Doodle poll at https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/gq3mfqxw3h5pffw3 not later than COB 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

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ZYICBw> (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

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 18 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

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…><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…><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: Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 18 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2019

Sept. 17, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder. Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 18 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. 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…> 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

2 1

REMINDER: DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Continue Review 3.1
by Ariel Liang Sept. 12, 2019

Sept. 12, 2019

Dear All, This is a gentle reminder for the DT Action below. In preparation for next week’s meeting, please complete your final review of 2.2/2.3 Rejection Action document, and focus on your review of 3.1 among the three new documents related to the Board Director Removal/Board Recall. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 6:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Continue Review 3.1 Dear Drafting Team, Per action items of today’s call, please be so kind to do the final review of the Google Doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). To facilitate your review, the latest updates (especially the text in Section 5.2) are still in the redline form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… In addition, please continue your review of the Google Doc for 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal). Staff have updated Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.11 to incorporate the proposed changes with regard to the timeline. Please feel free to suggest edits and comment directly on the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…> FYI, the Google Doc links for 3.2 and 3.3 are included below: * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 12, 2019

Sept. 12, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder. Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 18 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. 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…> 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

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 18 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. 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…> 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

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 04 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=115641577. 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: 1. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: DT agrees to come back to this document when the work on 2.2/2.3, and 3.1/3.2/3.3 is completed. 2. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT members will review the document, particularly new text in 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, which reflects the two feedback options for the community. To facilitate the review, the latest updates (especially the text in Section 5.2) are still in the redline form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT will review the document. Staff have updated Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.11 to incorporate the proposed changes with regard to the timeline. Please feel free to suggest edits and comment directly on the Google Doc: 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. 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…> a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT will review the document. 5. 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…> a. Staff will circulate the document; and b. DT will review the document. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP…> -- The ccNSO GRC represented by Katrina Sataki and Bart Boswinkel had some comments that conflicted. Staff arranged a call with Heather, Katrina, and Bart with staff. Got clarification on their concerns about the timeline. They also wanted a plain language approach. -- Staff, Heather, and David made extensive changes to address the GRC ccNSO edits and clarify the document, particularly the timeline. -- The DT has a lot of work to finish, so we didn’t see the point to stop that work and go back. -- Given that the joint consultation is a different animal and involves consultation with another group, we propose that we pause this and come back to it after the work is completed on 2.2 & 2.3, and 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 and sent that package to the GNSO Council. -- This will extend the work plan/timeline slightly. -- For the rest of the package we could get the GNSO Council to sign off on it in Montreal, and also ceremoniously sign off on the joint guidelines. -- Agree to park this document until after the rest of the work is done. 3. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Section 5.2: 5.2.1 GNSO Community Feedback Before Rejection Action Community Forum 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After Rejection Action Community Forum -- DT members should review the new text, which reflects the two feedback options for the community. 4. 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…> In the table on page 3, Addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures: 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions concerning a director removal process submitted by an individual must be submitted directly to the GNSO Council. -- Bylaws are not specific on how an individual should submit a petition. This language here is inconsistent with section 4.1 -- The language in the Bylaws says they are subject to the internal procedures of the Decisional Participant. If we want to go through SGs/Cs then we should develop a procedure to do that. -- Look at what we have written in the rejection action petition process. The basic should be a reasonable balance. -- Don’t think the SGs and Cs have to be factored into the discussion, but an individual acting alone has no ability to obligate the Decisional Participant to take a decision. -- Individuals don’t generally have the ability to contact the Council directly. An individual can’t post to the list. The communication should go through the Councilors. -- At the end of the day this has to come down to a motion, which has to come from an SG/C. The Bylaws will let us have procedures for an individual to submit – could add language that it could submit to the SG/C or the GNSO Council. “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) to the GNSO Council directly.” -- Does the above mean that the SG/C has to approve the petition? Need to alert the Council/Councilors that the SGs/Cs will need their own procedures to deal with petitions and also be alerted to the timing. -- If it is through an SG/C that would start the clock, and the only way to do that would be as a pass through. -- We may need to get a legal opinion on what an “individual” means. -- There is an argument to be made that an individual submitting to the GNSO should have a tie to the GNSO. But some might ask why the submission be limited. We could get in trouble to creating barriers. There should be no need for us to create eligibility rules. -- The motion is the control factor. -- 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? ACTION: Review the revised language at the top of page 5 and consider whether that addresses the instances where we talk about individual submissions. “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.” 4.2.3 Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Review and Certification, page 5: -- The individual can resubmit, but we don’t have to include in our guidelines a process for doing so. -- 2.2/2.3 permits resubmission (so issue of consistency). Timeline, page 10: Day 10/Day 15 -- Can we get back a few days. Should the dialog invite goes out on day 10 and should it be shorter than 15 days? Could it start right after day 2? There is a gap between day 2 and day 10. If we move the consultation up then we can move forward the rest of the deadlines. -- 15 days seem long, but what the Director might be charged with could be complex. Maybe the dialog has to be done by day 10, but not shorter.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Wednesday, 04 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 04 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/6YzkBg> (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

DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Continue Review 3.1
by Ariel Liang Sept. 4, 2019

Sept. 4, 2019

Dear Drafting Team, Per action items of today’s call, please be so kind to do the final review of the Google Doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). To facilitate your review, the latest updates (especially the text in Section 5.2) are still in the redline form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… In addition, please continue your review of the Google Doc for 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal). Staff have updated Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.11 to incorporate the proposed changes with regard to the timeline. Please feel free to suggest edits and comment directly on the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… FYI, the Google Doc links for 3.2 and 3.3 are included below: * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org

1 0