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

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / GNSO Drafting Team call / Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Guidelines and Principles for the GNSO's Roles and Obligations as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community call held on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/fhhIBg MP3: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-gnso-byl… Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p22fu4qvp9c/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

FW: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team
by Julie Hedlund April 10, 2019

April 10, 2019

From David McAuley: From: McAuley, David Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 9:02 AM To: 'gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org' <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team Dear Heather and members and staff of the GNSO Drafting Team: As luck would have it (of course), I was away with my family last Monday, April 1st (no fooling) in Ireland when the ccNSO guidelines team I am a part of discussed the Special IFRs under Bylaw section 18.12. So, I wrote to Katrina Sataki (ccNSO chair) and Bart Boswinkel (lead staff member for ccNSO) and asked for an update on the topic and here below is what Katrina said. (I will listen to the recording of the meeting but that may take a bit of time.) Best wishes, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:06 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; 'Bart Boswinkel' <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team Hi David, I am sorry you could not join the recent GRC call as this was one of the issues we discussed. Maybe you could listen to the recording? To sum it up, we had more questions than answers: * What is a “meaningful consultation”? Does it have to be face-to-face? What particular questions does it need to address? ccTLDs and gTLDs are the direct customers of IANA and as such they have issues that need to be resolved. It is clear that other SO/ACs cannot resolve those issues as they are not direct customers of IANA and, in some cases, they might not even understand the issues. Should we consult on the procedure and not the essence? * Who initiates the SIFR? The IFR is initiated by the Board. Should the SIFR follow the same pattern? But what if we failed to resolve the issue because of the Board? What if we need to act quickly (because too much time has already been wasted)? * Apparently the SIFR is the last resort. There is a certain procedure that needs to be followed to (at least) try to resolve the issue in question. The Bylaws mention Remedial Action Procedures – these are defined by the CSC, and IANA Probl;em Resolution Process – it refers to the contract which, in turn, refers to Remedial Action Procedures. Is this the same thing then? * Apparenlty, public comment is nota n obligation – we need to initiate it only if requested by GNSO and ccNSO. * There is a clear need to discuss this with the GNSO. Not sure it helps ☺ Regards, ]{atrina From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 10:14 PM To: katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Subject: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team Hi Katrina and Bart, I am participating in a recently formed GNSO drafting team to document processes to follow in GNSO’s role as decisional participant in the Empowered Community. This week we will be discussing the GNSO input process in the context of initiation of a special IFR on the IANA function. Bylaw section 18.12 covers such special IFRs. Section 18.12 places a number of obligations on the ccNSO and GNSO prior to such a special IFR being authorized (see, e.g., section 18.12(a)(iii)) which requires each to consider the matters presented and together to have ‘meaningful consultation’ with other SOs and ACs). We are about to consider how we might coordinate the process of consulting with ccNSO in this respect – including whether and how to formalize a consultation process and including whether consultative discussions might be informal but consultative decisions more formal. As we have these discussions I am wondering if you have thoughts on the questions that I could relay back to the GNSO drafting team – here, FYI, is our drafting team wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102146162>. Meantime, best wishes to you both. David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

1 0

REMINDER - FOR DISCUSSION: Section 18.12 -- GNSO Input Process & ccNSO Consultation Process
by Julie Hedlund April 10, 2019

April 10, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder of the items for DT member consideration and discussion. See details below and attached documents. 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: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:13 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR DISCUSSION: Section 18.12 -- GNSO Input Process & ccNSO Consultation Process Dear all, Per the action items below, DT members should note the following actions to prepare for the discussion of the draft guidelines for Section 18.12 at the next DT meeting on 10 April. DT members are encouraged to submit comments, suggestions, thoughts to the DT email distribution list for consideration in advance of the meeting. 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. Thank you for your consideration. With best 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, March 28, 2019 at 5:55 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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=105383460. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTIONS & NOTES: Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Timeline -- Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership (DONE 27 March by Heather – final is attached) ACTION ITEMS re: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Guidelines and Templates 1. Staff will revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. (DONE 28 March by staff and attached in Word and PDF) 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. (DONE 28 March by staff) ACTION ITEMS re: Section 18.12 Special IFRs 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. (ONGOING) -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. (ONGOING) -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review and approval of Draft Timeline: -- Discussion on 18.12 Special IFRs will include a need to coordinate with the ccNSO. -- Three-call rotation to complete/approve documents. -- Substantive work done by end of May. -- Package would go to the Council in time for the June document deadline (16 June). Suggest putting this on the agenda as a discussion item. -- One of us to attend the June meeting (Heather volunteers). -- Gives the time to go back to SGs and Cs. -- Proposed vote in the July GNSO Council meeting. ACTION ITEM: Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership. 3. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3: -- Page 7, Question 10: on whether we can ask if you are bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf -- insert a 10a include the names/contact on whose behalf you are bringing this request. -- Question 6, re: Question 10 -- could we identify others in this question? The responses to the questions are slightly different. -- If people disagree that you are bringing the claim on behalf of them then the claim is invalid. ICANN should confirm. -- What if it can't be verified? This would be so rare I don't think we have to anticipate that this would happen. -- Question 10 asked if you are bringing it on behalf of multiple entities, but we haven't asked if it is on behalf of a single entity. If there is even one more the question would be accurate. -- Informal feedback to staff: the form is not as clear as it could be. Once we've used it more in practice it might be further improved. -- A single entity can represent multiple entities. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs): -- Bringing an IFR outside of the IFR process (a "Special IFR" and only in two instances. -- Where a remedial action has already taken place but has not resolved the problem. -- These are very limited circumstances. -- The GIP GIP is proposed, but as a suggestion for the DT to consider. There might be other options, such as a small group within the Council, for example, or a drafting team. -- Consider not reinventing the wheel. -- Might require additional time, but perhaps allow for consultation with experts, research, etc. -- Might be necessary given the IANA function. -- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: May need a bit more time than in the GNSO. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GNSO Input Process: The DT member review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. Staff will provide a link to the document. Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval -- which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee. -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 6. AOB: Next meeting Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

2 1

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 10 April 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 8, 2019

April 8, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following draft agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 10 April at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Draft Agenda: 1. Review Agenda 2. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 3. Update re: Approval of Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3 (attached) – out for approval by COB 11 April 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs) (attached in Word and PDF): * Questions for Consideration: i. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p…> and attached in PDF. -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. ii. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER - FOR APPROVAL BY COB 11 APRIL 2019: Guidelines and Motion Templates 4.2 Community IRP & 4.3 IRP for Covered ICANN Actions
by Julie Hedlund April 4, 2019

April 4, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder of the action item for consideration and approval by DT members. See details below. If there are no objections received in one week by COB Thursday, 11 April the document will be considered as approved by the Drafting Team. If there are any objections to provisions in the document DT member(s) with objections are requested to propose text to resolve them. Thank you very much for your consideration. With best regards, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR APPROVAL BY COB 11 APRIL 2019: Guidelines and Motion Templates 4.2 Community IRP & 4.3 IRP for Covered ICANN Actions Dear all, Per the action items below, please review the attached final version of the Guidelines and Motion Templates for Sections 4.2 Community IRP and 4.3 IPR for Covered ICANN Actions. This document reflects the accepted edits previously reviewed, as well as the revision requested at the meeting on 27 March to question 10 of the Reconsideration Request to separate the question into 10a and 10b asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. If there are no objections received in two weeks by COB Thursday, 11 April the document will be considered as approved by the Drafting Team. If there are any objections to provisions in the document DT member(s) with objections are requested to propose text to resolve them. Thank you very much for your consideration. With best 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, March 28, 2019 at 5:55 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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=105383460. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTIONS & NOTES: Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Timeline -- Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership (DONE 27 March by Heather – final is attached) ACTION ITEMS re: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Guidelines and Templates 1. Staff will revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. (DONE 28 March by staff and attached in Word and PDF) 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. (DONE 28 March by staff) ACTION ITEMS re: Section 18.12 Special IFRs 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. (ONGOING) -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. (ONGOING) -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review and approval of Draft Timeline: -- Discussion on 18.12 Special IFRs will include a need to coordinate with the ccNSO. -- Three-call rotation to complete/approve documents. -- Substantive work done by end of May. -- Package would go to the Council in time for the June document deadline (16 June). Suggest putting this on the agenda as a discussion item. -- One of us to attend the June meeting (Heather volunteers). -- Gives the time to go back to SGs and Cs. -- Proposed vote in the July GNSO Council meeting. ACTION ITEM: Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership. 3. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3: -- Page 7, Question 10: on whether we can ask if you are bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf -- insert a 10a include the names/contact on whose behalf you are bringing this request. -- Question 6, re: Question 10 -- could we identify others in this question? The responses to the questions are slightly different. -- If people disagree that you are bringing the claim on behalf of them then the claim is invalid. ICANN should confirm. -- What if it can't be verified? This would be so rare I don't think we have to anticipate that this would happen. -- Question 10 asked if you are bringing it on behalf of multiple entities, but we haven't asked if it is on behalf of a single entity. If there is even one more the question would be accurate. -- Informal feedback to staff: the form is not as clear as it could be. Once we've used it more in practice it might be further improved. -- A single entity can represent multiple entities. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs): -- Bringing an IFR outside of the IFR process (a "Special IFR" and only in two instances. -- Where a remedial action has already taken place but has not resolved the problem. -- These are very limited circumstances. -- The GIP GIP is proposed, but as a suggestion for the DT to consider. There might be other options, such as a small group within the Council, for example, or a drafting team. -- Consider not reinventing the wheel. -- Might require additional time, but perhaps allow for consultation with experts, research, etc. -- Might be necessary given the IANA function. -- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: May need a bit more time than in the GNSO. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GNSO Input Process: The DT member review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. Staff will provide a link to the document. Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval -- which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee. -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 6. AOB: Next meeting Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

1 0

FOR DISCUSSION: Section 18.12 -- GNSO Input Process & ccNSO Consultation Process
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear all, Per the action items below, DT members should note the following actions to prepare for the discussion of the draft guidelines for Section 18.12 at the next DT meeting on 10 April. DT members are encouraged to submit comments, suggestions, thoughts to the DT email distribution list for consideration in advance of the meeting. 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. Thank you for your consideration. With best 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, March 28, 2019 at 5:55 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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=105383460. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTIONS & NOTES: Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Timeline -- Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership (DONE 27 March by Heather – final is attached) ACTION ITEMS re: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Guidelines and Templates 1. Staff will revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. (DONE 28 March by staff and attached in Word and PDF) 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. (DONE 28 March by staff) ACTION ITEMS re: Section 18.12 Special IFRs 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. (ONGOING) -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. (ONGOING) -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review and approval of Draft Timeline: -- Discussion on 18.12 Special IFRs will include a need to coordinate with the ccNSO. -- Three-call rotation to complete/approve documents. -- Substantive work done by end of May. -- Package would go to the Council in time for the June document deadline (16 June). Suggest putting this on the agenda as a discussion item. -- One of us to attend the June meeting (Heather volunteers). -- Gives the time to go back to SGs and Cs. -- Proposed vote in the July GNSO Council meeting. ACTION ITEM: Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership. 3. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3: -- Page 7, Question 10: on whether we can ask if you are bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf -- insert a 10a include the names/contact on whose behalf you are bringing this request. -- Question 6, re: Question 10 -- could we identify others in this question? The responses to the questions are slightly different. -- If people disagree that you are bringing the claim on behalf of them then the claim is invalid. ICANN should confirm. -- What if it can't be verified? This would be so rare I don't think we have to anticipate that this would happen. -- Question 10 asked if you are bringing it on behalf of multiple entities, but we haven't asked if it is on behalf of a single entity. If there is even one more the question would be accurate. -- Informal feedback to staff: the form is not as clear as it could be. Once we've used it more in practice it might be further improved. -- A single entity can represent multiple entities. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs): -- Bringing an IFR outside of the IFR process (a "Special IFR" and only in two instances. -- Where a remedial action has already taken place but has not resolved the problem. -- These are very limited circumstances. -- The GIP GIP is proposed, but as a suggestion for the DT to consider. There might be other options, such as a small group within the Council, for example, or a drafting team. -- Consider not reinventing the wheel. -- Might require additional time, but perhaps allow for consultation with experts, research, etc. -- Might be necessary given the IANA function. -- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: May need a bit more time than in the GNSO. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GNSO Input Process: The DT member review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. Staff will provide a link to the document. Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval -- which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee. -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 6. AOB: Next meeting Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

1 0

FOR APPROVAL BY COB 11 APRIL 2019: Guidelines and Motion Templates 4.2 Community IRP & 4.3 IRP for Covered ICANN Actions
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear all, Per the action items below, please review the attached final version of the Guidelines and Motion Templates for Sections 4.2 Community IRP and 4.3 IPR for Covered ICANN Actions. This document reflects the accepted edits previously reviewed, as well as the revision requested at the meeting on 27 March to question 10 of the Reconsideration Request to separate the question into 10a and 10b asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. If there are no objections received in two weeks by COB Thursday, 11 April the document will be considered as approved by the Drafting Team. If there are any objections to provisions in the document DT member(s) with objections are requested to propose text to resolve them. Thank you very much for your consideration. With best 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, March 28, 2019 at 5:55 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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=105383460. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTIONS & NOTES: Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Timeline -- Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership (DONE 27 March by Heather – final is attached) ACTION ITEMS re: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Guidelines and Templates 1. Staff will revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. (DONE 28 March by staff and attached in Word and PDF) 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. (DONE 28 March by staff) ACTION ITEMS re: Section 18.12 Special IFRs 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> and attached in Word and PDF. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. (ONGOING) -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. (ONGOING) -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review and approval of Draft Timeline: -- Discussion on 18.12 Special IFRs will include a need to coordinate with the ccNSO. -- Three-call rotation to complete/approve documents. -- Substantive work done by end of May. -- Package would go to the Council in time for the June document deadline (16 June). Suggest putting this on the agenda as a discussion item. -- One of us to attend the June meeting (Heather volunteers). -- Gives the time to go back to SGs and Cs. -- Proposed vote in the July GNSO Council meeting. ACTION ITEM: Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership. 3. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3: -- Page 7, Question 10: on whether we can ask if you are bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf -- insert a 10a include the names/contact on whose behalf you are bringing this request. -- Question 6, re: Question 10 -- could we identify others in this question? The responses to the questions are slightly different. -- If people disagree that you are bringing the claim on behalf of them then the claim is invalid. ICANN should confirm. -- What if it can't be verified? This would be so rare I don't think we have to anticipate that this would happen. -- Question 10 asked if you are bringing it on behalf of multiple entities, but we haven't asked if it is on behalf of a single entity. If there is even one more the question would be accurate. -- Informal feedback to staff: the form is not as clear as it could be. Once we've used it more in practice it might be further improved. -- A single entity can represent multiple entities. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs): -- Bringing an IFR outside of the IFR process (a "Special IFR" and only in two instances. -- Where a remedial action has already taken place but has not resolved the problem. -- These are very limited circumstances. -- The GIP GIP is proposed, but as a suggestion for the DT to consider. There might be other options, such as a small group within the Council, for example, or a drafting team. -- Consider not reinventing the wheel. -- Might require additional time, but perhaps allow for consultation with experts, research, etc. -- Might be necessary given the IANA function. -- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: May need a bit more time than in the GNSO. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GNSO Input Process: The DT member review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. Staff will provide a link to the document. Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval -- which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee. -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 6. AOB: Next meeting Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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=105383460. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTIONS & NOTES: Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Timeline -- Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership (DONE 27 March by Heather – final is attached) ACTION ITEMS re: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Guidelines and Templates 1. Staff will revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. (DONE 28 March by staff and attached in Word and PDF) 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. (DONE 28 March by staff) ACTION ITEMS re: Section 18.12 Special IFRs 1. GNSO Input Process: DT members should review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. See questions below. The GIP is at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.p… and attached in Word and PDF. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) -- Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. (ONGOING) -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. (ONGOING) -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. (FOR DISCUSSION ON 10 APRIL – INPUT TO THE LIST PRIOR IS APPRECIATED) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review and approval of Draft Timeline: -- Discussion on 18.12 Special IFRs will include a need to coordinate with the ccNSO. -- Three-call rotation to complete/approve documents. -- Substantive work done by end of May. -- Package would go to the Council in time for the June document deadline (16 June). Suggest putting this on the agenda as a discussion item. -- One of us to attend the June meeting (Heather volunteers). -- Gives the time to go back to SGs and Cs. -- Proposed vote in the July GNSO Council meeting. ACTION ITEM: Heather will communicate the timeline to the GNSO Council leadership. 3. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3: -- Page 7, Question 10: on whether we can ask if you are bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf -- insert a 10a include the names/contact on whose behalf you are bringing this request. -- Question 6, re: Question 10 -- could we identify others in this question? The responses to the questions are slightly different. -- If people disagree that you are bringing the claim on behalf of them then the claim is invalid. ICANN should confirm. -- What if it can't be verified? This would be so rare I don't think we have to anticipate that this would happen. -- Question 10 asked if you are bringing it on behalf of multiple entities, but we haven't asked if it is on behalf of a single entity. If there is even one more the question would be accurate. -- Informal feedback to staff: the form is not as clear as it could be. Once we've used it more in practice it might be further improved. -- A single entity can represent multiple entities. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Revise question 10 -- break into 10(a) and 10(b) asking for names and contact information of multiple entities. 2. Send for review to the list as a last call in 2 weeks, asking for objections but if someone objects to a provision they should propose text. 4. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs): -- Bringing an IFR outside of the IFR process (a "Special IFR" and only in two instances. -- Where a remedial action has already taken place but has not resolved the problem. -- These are very limited circumstances. -- The GIP GIP is proposed, but as a suggestion for the DT to consider. There might be other options, such as a small group within the Council, for example, or a drafting team. -- Consider not reinventing the wheel. -- Might require additional time, but perhaps allow for consultation with experts, research, etc. -- Might be necessary given the IANA function. -- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee: May need a bit more time than in the GNSO. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GNSO Input Process: The DT member review the GIP and in the context of the initiation of a Special IFR on the IANA function. Staff will provide a link to the document. Is it useful, is anything missing -- a gap analysis. Should help to identify any GNSO-specific items. If we do need something else suggest what that could be. -- Can we focus on just how to coordinate on just the consultation process. How formal do we need to be with that consultation process? Could be informal during development, but more formal for approval -- which you can enter into via the respective chairs. 2. Coordination with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee. -- Staff is checking with ccNSO support staff on timing. -- David McAuley will check with Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Chair. -- DT members should think about what needs to be documented such as timing, consultation, and how to make a final joint decision. 6. AOB: Next meeting Wednesday, 10 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / GNSO Drafting Team call on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Guidelines and Principles for the GNSO's Roles and Obligations as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community call held on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JAZIBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-27mar19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p32y7nnpvf4/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org] [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 27 March 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 26, 2019

March 26, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following draft agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 27 March at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Draft Agenda: 1. Review Agenda 2. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 3. Review and approval of Draft Timeline (attached) 4. Review and Discuss Revised Draft of Guidelines/Templates for Sections 4.2 and 4.3 (attached in Word and PDF) 5. Review and Discuss Approach for Guidelines for 18.12 Special IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs) 6. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 3