- Gnso-bylaws-dt - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] Re: For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review
by Marika Konings March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

To facilitate this process and make the document a bit more manageable, I’ve lifted out the table, grouped the questions and legal assessment together and created a separate column for DT input and a DT response. Of course, if there any other elements that need further consideration, apart from the issues identified in the executive summary, please feel free to add these to the table. Those that have not provided their input yet, please feel free to add to the table or send it to the list. Best regards, Marika From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 22:06 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com>, 'Wolf-Ulrich Knoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review DT members: Thanks for looking at this in advance of our Wednesday working session. In the attached, I pasted the ISPCP points sent by Wolf-Ulrich via eat email below. And I added BC’s discussion points. (both in red, on pages 2-5. Glad to have others enter their points in the attached doc, or just send as email text and I will insert. —Steve From: gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 5:41 AM To: gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review Steve and all, some short answers/comments: IN 1: yes IN 5: yes IN 15: yes, it should be documented. But Board member selection is done on house level, not SG. IN 37: Is this drafting team the right body to address this (I mean from its composition point of view)? Or shouldn't these procedural items been elaborated by the GNSO RT which took over similar tasks from the SCI? Who's the addressee of a petition in this context? A petition in principle could be filed from anyone within the GNSO community. Criteria should be developed with respect to the specific character of a petition in order to avoid that it just circumvents the GNSO's working process. IN 44-46: Maybe a kind of "PDP" (Petition Development Process): Raising an issue, preleminary evaluation by (legal?) staff, council decision... IN 45 (3/4 threshold): I tend to leave this decision with the body which appointed the board member (house). On the other hand each board member is accountable to the entire (SO?) community. This should be taken into consideration as well. Am 11.03.2017 um 17:07 schrieb Steve DelBianco: Thanks, Marika. When we completed our DT report late last year, we did promise to stay engaged and answer questions like these. So our first step is for each of us to read the draft and think about how to answer the 8 “Questions Identified” in column B, pages 1-4 of our attached doc. If we can each draft some rough answers to your questions, that would be a great setup for the meeting. From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review Dear Bylaws Drafting Team, As you will recall, on 1 December 2016, the GNSO Council directed ‘ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council’. In the analysis of the DT recommendations, staff took a minimalist approach by focusing on the minimum changes needed to implement the DT recommendations. However, in undertaking this work, staff did identify a number of questions and made a number of assumptions that it is requesting the DTs input on before this document and the revised ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures are published for public comment. You will find these questions and assumptions outlined in the attached document (in pdf and word version). To facilitate your review, the main questions have been flagged in the table contained in the executive summary. We realise that there may be little time for you to review this document ahead of ICANN58 but we hope you are available to join us for the session that has been scheduled on Wednesday 15 March from 17.00 – 18.30 local time (see http://sched.co/9nqV[sched.co]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_9nqV&d=DwMGaQ&…> for further details). This session is intended to walk you through our questions and assumptions as well as answer any questions you may have. The DT can also discuss how to proceed following ICANN58 to develop its input on these questions and assumptions which will then allow staff to finalise the documents for publication for public comment. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt -- Am Steinringer Berg 19 53639 Königswinter Tel: 02244 873999 Fax: 02244 873955 Mob: 0151 1452 5867

2 2

For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review
by Marika Konings March 13, 2017

March 13, 2017

Dear Bylaws Drafting Team, As you will recall, on 1 December 2016, the GNSO Council directed ‘ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council’. In the analysis of the DT recommendations, staff took a minimalist approach by focusing on the minimum changes needed to implement the DT recommendations. However, in undertaking this work, staff did identify a number of questions and made a number of assumptions that it is requesting the DTs input on before this document and the revised ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures are published for public comment. You will find these questions and assumptions outlined in the attached document (in pdf and word version). To facilitate your review, the main questions have been flagged in the table contained in the executive summary. We realise that there may be little time for you to review this document ahead of ICANN58 but we hope you are available to join us for the session that has been scheduled on Wednesday 15 March from 17.00 – 18.30 local time (see http://sched.co/9nqV for further details). This session is intended to walk you through our questions and assumptions as well as answer any questions you may have. The DT can also discuss how to proceed following ICANN58 to develop its input on these questions and assumptions which will then allow staff to finalise the documents for publication for public comment. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

4 4

Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House - Monday, 6 March 2017 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-22-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Monday, 6 March 2017 - 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions of the Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House on Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The Policy Open House builds on the previous Policy Update Webinar and incorporates more interaction. The new format will feature: · Decreased Duration | Two 60-minute sessions, rather than two 90-minute briefings · Interactive Format | A question and answer exchange with the Policy Team · Preparatory Materials | The Pre-ICANN58 Policy Report and Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Process Briefings will be published one week prior to the open house This improved structure will allow the ICANN community to ask questions about policy and advice development work taking place at ICANN58. The Policy Team also welcomes questions through the upcoming registration form and via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> . Registration begins on Monday, 27 February 2017. The open house will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . The Policy Team looks forward to assisting the ICANN community prepare for ICANN58! --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support Managing Director ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> david.olive(a)icann.org ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul Mobile +1. 202.341.3611 | Mobile +90.533.341.6550 | Direct Line +90.212.999.6212

1 0

UPDATE Re: Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 2, 2016

Dec. 2, 2016

Steve and DT Members, During its meeting today, 01 December, the GNSO Council unanimously passed a very slightly amended version of the motion (with amendments from Amr accepted as friendly). I will send a link to the amended motion as soon as it is posted. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Monday, November 7, 2016 at 4:03 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Update: GNSO Council Chair James Bladel introduced an amended motion accepting our DT report today in Council (see below). One Councilor requested a deferral, so this motion will be considered at the Council call on 1-Dec. I should add that this motion is supported by the IPC, BC, and ISPCP. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps Made by: James Bladel; Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-…) The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:25 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Should have sent this out earlier, sorry. Just a follow-up on last week’s GNSO Council meeting (13-Oct): There was discussion of our DT reports. Amr, Wolf-Ulrich, and I answered some questions. Then at least 2 Councilors (Heather Forrest and Marilia Maciel) asked for deferral of the motion until the Hyderabad meeting (7-Nov). Transcript of Council discussion is here[gnso.icann.org], pages 16-25. Hoping that all of you will be in India so we can explain our report and answer questions from Council — which requires a GNSO Supermajority to approve our recommendations. —Steve From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:05 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Steve and DT members, Please see below the following message from James Bladel, GNSO Council Chair, on the GNSO Council list pertaining to the submission. Kind regards, Julie ----------- message from James Bladel --------------- Thank you, Julie. And please convey our appreciation to Steve and the members of the Drafting Team. Councilors – This will be Agenda Item #5 on tomorrow’s call, so please try to review before then. Thank you, J. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team [ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors] Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

2 2

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

Steve, Your email showed up for me just now (though I see you sent it over an hour ago). I’ll get this sent to Council right away. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team [ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors] Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

5 10

REMINDER: Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en%5d> Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

FW: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

FYI From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:08 PM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear Councillors, For easy access, the minority report has been published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> And can be directly viewed at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:47 AM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Minority Report for the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:18 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear Julie, Please ensure that the attached minority report from myself, Wolf Ulrich, and Steve DelBianco is forwarded to the Council lists. It expands on the minority views that were summarized in the Drafting Team final report, and also suggests an alternative to having Council speak for GNSO. Thank you. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com[msk.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.msk.com_&d=DQMF-g&c…> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

1 0

Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT
by Metalitz, Steven Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear Julie, Please ensure that the attached minority report from myself, Wolf Ulrich, and Steve DelBianco is forwarded to the Council lists. It expands on the minority views that were summarized in the Drafting Team final report, and also suggests an alternative to having Council speak for GNSO. Thank you. [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

2 2

Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
by Darcy Southwell Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary. On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations. Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members: “DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.” Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters. Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears(a)cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section. Matthew On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report. This is on page 3: “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community." And this is on page 4: "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This could imply that Council is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters.” I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t? Thanks. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report. And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt

5 5

Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

[ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors] Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

1 0