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

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 24, 2019

July 24, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/TaSjBg> (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 -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

REMINDER - FOR FINAL REVIEW: Revised Guidelines & Motion Template - Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum (11 July 2019)
by Julie Hedlund July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Dear DT members, Per action item 2 below from the meeting on 10 July, please review the revised version of the GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE: SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT (11 July 2019) at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. The document also is attached in Word with redlines. The document will be on the agenda for finalization/approval at the next meeting on Wednesday, 24 July at 21:00 UTC. In the meantime, DT members are encouraged to make suggested edits and comments in the Google document or in the Word document. Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 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=111387729. 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 Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wn… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-201… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: * Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. * In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 3. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: * The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. * On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 4. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.

2 2

REMINDER - FOR REVIEW: Guidelines & Templates - Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum
by Julie Hedlund July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Dear DT members, Per action item 3 below from the meeting on 10 July, please review draft of the GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum (17 May 2019) at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bftPSj8N4xBUebP0F7s-qS51cel_pL-vyQimKG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. The document also is attached in Word. The document will be on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting on Wednesday, 24 July at 21:00 UTC. In the meantime, DT members are encouraged to make suggested edits and comments in the Google document or in the Word document. Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 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=111387729. 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 Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wn… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-201… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.

1 1

REMINDER: Updated Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 24 July at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 24 July 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. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR 3. Finalize Discussion: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. Begin Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bftPSj8N4xBUebP0F7s-qS51cel_pL-vyQimKG… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 5. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Revised Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR 15 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 18, 2019

July 18, 2019

Dear ccNSO GRC and GNSO DT members, The ccNSO GRC and the GNSO DT had a very productive joint meeting on Monday, 15 July, to review the questions and consider responses to the questions previously identified by the GRC (attached), and determine revisions to the guidelines. Thanks to all who were available to attend that meeting and to participate. Per the action items below from that meeting, please review the draft of the Revised Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR 15 July 2019 (15 July 2019) at: CLEAN VERSION: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OnFqzjkFTJEw0rzvaiBqAKLVnbbli-c_5t9aV2T… (permission set to suggestions/comment) REDLINE VERSION: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP… (permission set to view) Please also see Word versions of the clean and redlined documents, as well as a list of all draft documents including the current versions, on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. GNSO DT Support Staff worked closely with Heather Forrest and David McCauley to revise the document to capture the action items and discussion in the Google and Word documents. We request that the members of your two groups should review at your earliest convenience the revised version of the guidelines. If you have suggested edits/comments it will be very helpful if you could include them in the CLEAN version of the Google document. The REDLINE version is primarily for reference. Thank you very much for your consideration as we finalize these guidelines. Kind regards, Julie & Ariel Julie Hedlund and Ariel Liang From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 15, 2019 at 8:45 AM To: ccnso-grc <ccnso-grc(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Subject: NOTES: GRC | Monday, 15 July 2019 at 12:00 UTC Hello everyone. Please find included below the notes and action items the joint meeting between the GRC and the GNSO drafting team on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 12:00 UTC Best regards, Joke Braeken ACTION ITEMS: Action item #1: Q3. David McAuley to suggest alternative language, with added flexibility. [completed by Julie Hedlund] Action item #2: Q5. David McAuley to suggest alternative language Q5. GNSO staff to verify the guideline to ensure there is a formal reference in the guidelines to note that the work is concluded. Action item #3: Julie Hedlund to update the guidelines document based on today’s discussion, and share the revised text with the GNSO DT, and GRC. Incorporate the timing into the guideline document. Action item #4: Staff will adjust the timeline to show the maximum and minimum timing NOTES: 1. Welcome and roll call Attendance will be taken based on who is on Zoom. Apologies from: Alyssa Moore. Calls will be recorded and posted on the public wiki. Please remember to mute your phones and microphones when not speaking. 2. Special IFR Julie Hedlund: questions from the previous meeting. Edits/suggestions in red by David McAuley. David McAuley: 5 questions displayed on screen. Suggestions by David to the GNSO design team. Q1. when to establish sIFR? First to PTI Board, then to ICANN CEO and then to the Board. Q2. GNSO and ccNSO councils working together. SICT to issue statement, and mention both councils signed off on it. Support by Heather. Helpful to have guidelines. Flexible timing is appreciated. Q3. even distribution of the work Suggestion for SICT to keep duties under 5.4 and 5.6 and council deals with 5.5. (deciding whether to request a public comment period). “The councils may determine that …” More flexibility might be needed in the phrasing: avoid being too prescriptive. Action item #1: Q3. David McAuley to suggest alternative language, with added flexibility. [completed by Julie Hedlund] Q4. other avenues to address the PTI issue Alternative language suggested Steve Del Bianco: It’s an excellent idea to require consideration of alternative means to address an IANA functions problem. Bart: ICT to suggest to councils to look into alternative means to address the issue around PTI performance. When looking at the timeline, it becomes an issue. Q5. closing down SICT if the CSC manages to fix the problem. No alternative language suggested yet by David. Bart: close the loop, the process to avoid unclarity on whether to proceed or not. Heather: do we have a formal way of communicating - regardless of whether SICT has concluded its work or not? Action item #2: Q5. David McAuley to suggest alternative language Q5. GNSO staff to verify the guideline to ensure there is a formal reference in the guidelines to note that the work is concluded. Action item #3: Julie Hedlund to update the guidelines document based on today’s discussion, and share the revised text with the GNSO DT, and GRC. Incorporate the timing into the guideline document. Bart: speaks to the timeline. Starting point is when CSC sends a formal notification of the GNSO and ccNSO councils. In the meanwhile the CSC did already some actions under the Remedial Action Procedure. Min 10 days before the notification. More realistically: 30 days. During that period, when the Board is informed by the CSC: good timing for the coordination group to be established. Do every year a reminder. Starting point (day 0): CSC notifies both councils (use a template). Review actions: how long this will take is determined by internal procedures. 3 weeks, maybe less. Inform the Board, and then the Board will call a special review to commence. Call for volunteers, run by ICANN Org. Action item #4: Staff will adjust the timeline to show the maximum and minimum timing Next steps: once the update document is being shared, GRC to review. Absolute minimum: bylaw requirement? Flexibility not to launch a public consultation.so you can get rid of 45 days. Critical part: how long do the councils need? GNSO staff to share the document by the end of the week. Suggestion to conclude the work by the end of August. 3. AOB 4. Closure Thank you all. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 24 July at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 24 July 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. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR 3. Finalize Discussion: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35… 4. Begin Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bftPSj8N4xBUebP0F7s-qS51cel_pL-vyQimKG… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 5. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 24 July at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 24 July 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. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR 3. Finalize Discussion: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. Begin Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bftPSj8N4xBUebP0F7s-qS51cel_pL-vyQimKG… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 5. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Meeting with ccNSO GRC tomorrow - thoughts on questions
by McAuley, David July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Heather and members of the GNSO drafting team, In preparing for the call tomorrow with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I'd like to note my suggestions on the questions we will be looking at tomorrow, given my unique perspective as a member of both teams. Here are the questions, followed by my recommendations in red-italics: 1. We envision the creation of a GNSO-ccNSO Special IFR Initiation Coordination Team (SICT) - see paragraph 5.2. We say that as soon as the CSC informs the ccNSO and GNSO Councils about a performance issue as defined in the CSC Remedial Action Procedure, the two Councils shall as soon as possible each appoint three (3) members including the Chairs to the SICT. Well, these CSC procedures involve going first to the PTI Board, then the ICANN CEO, and then to the ICANN Board. The GRC wonders when specifically should the SICT be established and they suggest that it not be until the ICANN Board is engaged in the matter. (Note - The CSC will inform the Councils of every escalation step in the RAP.) a. Question: Do we agree? What do we think? It seems like a sensible suggestion to me. The Board will take at least a little time to react and with this joint guideline the SICT ought to be able to get prepared. It might make sense, however, for both Councils (when they adopt this guideline) to create an annual reminder on their agendas of what a SICT is and whom they might consider as likely candidates should the need arise. 2. In reading through paragraph 5.3, the GRC was not quite sure whether the respective Councils would have to make one joint statement or two - and how the interplay takes place between posting input on the various websites and jointly releasing a statement through the SICT. a. Question: Can we clarify how this process works? b. Related question: Can we two groups jointly map out the timeline of the SICT to test its viability? (For instance, we allow up to 30 days for input from SOs and ACs (see last sentence of paragraph 4.4) and then perhaps allow for the time needed for public comment - will these time periods work?) Paragraph 5.3 currently says this in part: 'The GNSO and ccNSO shall jointly release a statement through the SICT that they are initiating a Joint Consultation ...' That sounds to me as if there is just one statement and it comes from SICT. Maybe SICT can sign off on such a statement and then below its signature could be approval signature-blocks for ccNSO and GNSO. On timing, I think a 'dry-run'-through makes good sense. But I also suggest that we consider an overarching timing-paragraph along these lines: Flexible construction of time periods within this document: Each time period specified in this document within which any decision or other action must be made shall be understood as being a 'not-greater-than' time period, it being understood that in all instances, as well as cumulatively, the individual or group (e.g. Council Chair or SICT) having to decide or act shall decide or act so as to remain within the times specified under the ICANN Bylaws(including the Annexes to such Bylaws). 3. For the work and deliberations involved in paragraphs 5.4 through 5.6 (this is a considerable amount of work) the document places most of the onus on the SICT. THE GRC wonders if this is too much to load onto the SICT and whether some of this should be shifted to the respective Councils - and what that balance would look like in a bit more detail. Moreover, given the ramifications of the decisions involved which decision should be on the plate of the full Councils and which on the plate of the coordination team? a. Question: What do we think? This also seems sensible - and maybe a good division would be to assign duties in 5.4 and 5.6 to SICT, and those in 5.5 to Councils. 4. With respect to considerations of a Special IFR itself, the GRC noted that other avenues exist through which to address PTI issues - for instance (1) possible removal of director(s) and (2) the ability to bring an IRP relating to PTI service complaints and/or ICANN's failure to enforce its rights under the IANA Naming Functions Contract - and mediation is also available. a. Question: Should this document note the fact that Councils will possibly be looking at alternative courses of action and thus we should be careful to check on that possibility to factor it into our calculations? This seems wise, at least for the SICT (assume that Councils will remain abreast of developments in other avenues) - maybe a sentence at the end of section 5.2 along these lines: In addition, the SICT shall take steps to remain informed of developments at resolving the PTI Performance Issue(s) by other means and shall consider such developments as they may reasonably influence the work of the SICT without jeopardizing the SICT's ability to remain within the timeline(s) specified by the Bylaws (including Annexes to the Bylaws). 5. Finally, the document should perhaps make reference to ongoing steps by CSC to resolve the issue. What happens if the PTI/IANA issue is resolved along the way - should we address closing down the SIFR and SICT. (Note - once the CSC informs the Councils at the end of the RAP the role of the CSC is very limited - see the RAP process [icann.org] This seems sensible, but I would like to hear a bit more from Bart about what this might look like. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

6 5

Response from ICANN Legal Concerning Initiation of a Special IFR
by Julie Hedlund July 12, 2019

July 12, 2019

Dear all, Per action item 1 below from the meeting on 10 July, please see the following response from Sam Eisner at ICANN Legal concerning whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR. It appears from this response that it is the votes of the ccNSO and GNSO to initiate the Special IFR (assuming the Bylaws requirements of 18.12(a) (i)-(iv) are met), that obligate the Board to make sure the Special IFR goes forward. While this appears to confirm the DT’s assumption, staff is interested in your thoughts concerning the response. Kind regards, Julie & Ariel ------------------------------------------------ From Samantha Eisner, ICANN Legal: The Special IFR can only be initiated once the requirements laid out at 18.12(a) (i)- (iv) have been satisfied. Among those requirements are supermajority support at the GNSO council and ccNSO Council levels, after consideration of the resolution of the PTI Performance Issue. In this case, it’s the completion of the votes that tells the Board it’s time for a Special IFR, instead of the running of a five-year calendar period that tells the Board it’s time for a Periodic IFR. If the requirements of 18.12(a) are met and the Special IFR is voted to be initiated, then 18.1 obligates the Board to make sure that the Special IFR goes forward and adheres to all other Bylaws requirements. With that, the Board’s oversight role would include making sure that the org is proceeding with calls to the community to compose the IFRT and supporting the appointing entities in their process, as well as providing all other appropriate support for the Special IFR to proceed. Hope this is helpful. Sam From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 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=111387729. 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 Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wn… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6G… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-201… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.

3 3

FW: [council] 11 July Update - Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review
by Julie Hedlund July 12, 2019

July 12, 2019

Dear Heather and DT members, FYI concerning the below message. Staff felt it would be helpful to provide some context on this activity to the GNSO Council and to remind them of the importance of the work of the Drafting Team. Kind regards, Julie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] 11 July Update - Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review Dear GNSO Councilors, Staff thought it might be helpful to provide some context concerning this item below in the ICANN Community Leadership Digest: “Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review” and to explain the GNSO’s role as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community. The item in the digest references an open public comment forum: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-201… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. The purpose of the forum, which closes on 26 July 2019, is: to obtain community input on a proposed change to Bylaws Section 18.7(b), regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. The proposed amendment was raised by the ccNSO, which has identified a current and ongoing issue with populating the IANA Naming Function Review in accordance with the Bylaws' requirements. The Board, taking on the ccNSO's request, agreed to initiate the Fundament Bylaws amendment process (specified Section 25.2 of the Bylaws) to seek community input on the ccNSO's proposed modifications to the composition requirements. The amendment would remove the requirement for the ccNSO to identify a non-ccNSO member ccTLD representative and instead allow the ccNSO to appoint three representatives to the team, regardless of ccNSO member status. The GNSO’s role in this process as a Decision Participant in the Empowered Community is noted in the public comment forum announcement [emphasis added]: “The ICANN Board will consider public comments received in evaluating the proposed Amendment. If the Board approves a Fundamental Bylaws change, the ICANN Empowered Community will then need to consider whether to approve the amendment as well.” The Empowered Community has a role in approval actions as described in Annex D EC Mechanism, Section 1.1 Approval Actions. There are three actions that require approval: 1. Fundamental Bylaw Amendments, as contemplated by Section 25.2 of the Bylaws; 2. Articles Amendments, as contemplated by Section 25.2 of the Bylaws; and 3. Asset Sales, as contemplated by Article 26 of the Bylaws. As the change requested by the ccNSO is an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws, it requires consideration by the Empowered Community as to whether to approve the amendment. If the Board decides to approve the Fundamental Bylaws change that will trigger Section 1.3 of Annex D, Approval Action Community Forum. In anticipation of Board approval, an Approval Action Community Forum is tentatively planned for ICANN66 (if requested, the Forum occurs either within 30 days of the Board’s approval, or at the next scheduled ICANN meeting). As you may know, the GNSO Council has re-established a Drafting Team<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102143482> that is developing guidelines for the GNSO’s roles and obligations as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community. According to its timeline<https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Timeline+and+Background+Docume…>, the Drafting Team anticipates providing all guidelines and templates to the GNSO Council to review by October 2019. However, the Drafting Team expects to complete its review of the guidelines and templates for Section 1.3 of the Bylaws, the Approval Action Community Forum, by 24 July 2019. In any case, those guidelines will be available to guide the GNSO’s engagement in the Approval Action Community Forum at ICANN66 and its decision whether or not to approve the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment via a simple majority vote on a motion according to the deadline of 21 days following the end of the Forum. This Approval Action will afford the GNSO Council the first opportunity to act in its role as a Decisional Participant using the guidelines and templates developed by the Drafting Team. If the GNSO Council would like a short briefing on this issue at its meeting on 18 July there is time allotted in the agenda under Any Other Business. In addition, please feel free to direct any questions you may have for staff to this list. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:01 AM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [ICANN Community Leaders] 11 July Update [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=507bdd88-cdb1-40c9-8c70-c3dec8dd2aac&a=1122025…] Thursday, 11 July 2019 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] This twice-weekly digest helps ICANN community leaders track requests and provides updates from ICANN org. TABLE OF CONTENTS Information Sharing · NEW: NextGen@ICANN Survey · REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition · REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Public Comment · Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews · Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules · Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review · Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership · Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables · Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review · Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan · Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System · Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project Information Sharing NEW: NextGen@ICANN Survey Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation to identify improvement opportunities for the NextGen@ICANN Program. The review will start with gathering community input about several aspects of the NextGen@ICANN Program, including its purpose, goals, processes, and synergies with the ICANN academic community. The survey is intended for all ICANN community groups; individuals are encouraged to work with their relevant Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and constituencies. Based on the input received from the survey, ICANN org will draft a proposal for program improvements that will be published for Public Comment. Once all feedback is received, ICANN org will prepare the final proposal for program improvements. Survey [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> (PDF with background at the beginning and questionnaire questions at the end) Background about the Community Consultation [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Sally Costerton's blog about the NextGen@ICANN Community Consultation [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> NextGen webpage [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition Executive: John Jeffrey, General Counsel FOR: All SO/AC Chairs INFORMATION SHARING As the ICANN Board committee with oversight responsibility of ICANN's accountability mechanisms, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) considers the work of the [Independent Review Process (IRP)] Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) to be paramount to ICANN's accountability...we seek your help in finding additional volunteers within the community that meet the qualifications identified in the attached letter, outlining skills and experience requirements, to join the IOT and help to conclude its work in a timely fashion. Read more [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Executive: Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING In December 2015, the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine if changes to existing policy recommendations are needed before the next round of gTLDs. The PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. These recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. These assumptions have been shared with the ICANN Board, and now ICANN org would like to share them with relevant parts of the community. Public Comment Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 15 July 2019 Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 19 July Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 26 July 2019 Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 26 July 2019 Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 26 July 2019 Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: 4 August 2019 Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 5 August 2019 Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 9 August 2019 Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 12 August 2019 Volume 1, Issue 31 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> | Next Issue: Monday, 15 July 2019 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> | About Constant Contact [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> in collaboration with [Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…>

1 0