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

Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 21 September. These high-level notes are designed to help DT members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC 1. Statements of Interest Action Item: Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so. Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability. 2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds Action Items: 1. Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the number (84). 2. Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss. Discussion Notes: Who should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies? · Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17 instances that were identified, not for other instances. · Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations. · Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC instances and others. · Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not limited to, the GNSO Council. · Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the Council does manage. · Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. · Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary. · Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph. · Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17 instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended." · Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it? · Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO. Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC? “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell “No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree. NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed: · Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles. There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have done, such as the GNSO Review WG. · Ed Morris: Agree with Amr. · Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues. · Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes. How should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house? · Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote. · Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing with other Council. Section 11.3. · David Maher: I agree with that. · Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member. · Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House. Doesn't include votes for the NCA. · David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme. · Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no". · Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no". · Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme. · Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines. · Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question. · Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support. · Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can. · Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an interesting and important option. · Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now. · Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time. · Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no". Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO · Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree. · Steve D.: Move into the second row. · Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low. · Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests. · Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about? · Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others. · Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second row is instruction. · Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority. · Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority. · Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M. 3. Timing of Final Meeting Action Item: Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28th and Thursday the 29th. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29th so this time slot will be avoided.

2 2

Doodle to Reschedule 28 September Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please take the Doodle poll (dates and times eliminated where there are conflicts with other GNSO meetings, or other conflicts) at: http://doodle.com/poll/z23h5rb99icgwfi9. Please take the poll by COB Friday, 23 September so that we can send a notification by Monday, 26 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- 21 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- call held on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 13:00 UTC at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-implementation-21sep16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=BicbgE3FNUxHuHwOPdgXp7PxnHhpBITaBzf…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Farzaneh Badii Steve Metalitz Darcy Southwell Amr Elsadr David Maher Edward Morris Steve Debianco Tony Harris Matthew Shears Apologies: None ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archive:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/ DT wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 21 September 2016 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Wedneday 21 September 2016 at 13:00 UTC. Nathalie Peregrine:Wiki meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/AwW4Aw Nathalie Peregrine:Notes from the last meeting: https://community.icann.org/x/dh2sAw Farzaneh Badii:It's the DT :) Steve DelBianco:Tony -- do you have the draft report I sent on Sunday? matthew shears:morning Terri Agnew:Members/SOI: https://community.icann.org/x/2hCsAw Steve DelBianco:Julie & Terri -- could u please have ready a PDF of Ed Morris' letter for display in Adobe? Will be needed later Tony Harris:Steve, no I do not Amr Elsadr:I'm guessing my GNSO SOI works? Julie Hedlund:@Steve: I have Ed's ready too. Julie Hedlund:I also sent the draft to the group with the agenda today. Julie Hedlund:So, the DT members should all have both Ed's and Steve's drafts. Julie Hedlund:@Steve: I will capture the notes and revise the report according to the comments received. Julie Hedlund:@All: The document is unsynced. Steve DelBianco:Staff: could you please display Steve's markup now? Julie Hedlund:@Steve: In process. Julie Hedlund:@Steve: the document is up. matthew shears:yes, Steve - exactly matthew shears:EC is GNSO - its clearly stated in the bylaws Edward Morris:Agreed. Steve DelBianco:EC includes GNSO, and GNSO incluides Council. Steve DelBianco:question: is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC? Marika Konings:If I recall well, there was a specific discussion on the CWG-Stewardship on whether it should be GNSO or GNSO Council and it was conciously written as GNSO Council. Steve DelBianco:Section 11.2. ORGANIZATIONThe GNSO shall consist of: (a) (b)(c) (d)(e)A number of Constituencies, where applicable, organized within the Stakeholder Groups as described in Section 11.5;Four Stakeholder Groups organized within Houses as described in Section 11.5;Two Houses within the GNSO Council as described in Section 11.3(h);A GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO, as described in Section 11.3; andExcept as otherwise defined in these Bylaws, the four Stakeholder Groups and the Constituencies will be responsible for defining their own charters with the approval of their members and of the Board. Marika Konings:The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it? steve metalitz:t@Marika, yes, the word "only" does not appear. Amr Elsadr:No Marika, they don't. Apart from the description of the GNSO, as explained by Steve M., there are Annexes A-1 and A-2 that have nothing to do with policy development. Amr Elsadr:The bylaws also give the GNSO the discretion to operate internally based on its own operating procedures. Not everything the GNSO does is in the bylaws. Steve DelBianco:Amr -- you are focusing what the Council does today. We are asking whether Council SHOULD speak for GNSO inthe new bylaws. matthew shears:Agree Ed - I am a little at a loss to understand what other mechanism would be as suited as the council given the limited time we have to complete this work, and if there were to other options surely they would have to be discussed more fully by the GNSO and would take significantly more time than we have Steve DelBianco:again, our question is: Should Council speak for GNSO on matters where the new bylaws refer to EC and AC/SOs. matthew shears:I would also vote yes Amr Elsadr:Yes. Farzaneh Badii:I vote yes too Darcy Southwell:I vote yes too Amr Elsadr:It's a little too late for that Tony. ;-) Edward Morris:Agree with Amr Darcy Southwell:Agree with Amr on this. Farzaneh Badii:what is the alternative to the council? I have not heard any suggestions. Darcy Southwell:We have not had nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some of these issues. Farzaneh Badii:agreed Darcy matthew shears:+ 1 - plenty of options to review again in the future but for now we should be focussed on enabling the GNSO to engage in its new role as a Decisonal Participant David Maher:iI can only see pages 1 and 2 Steve DelBianco:Staff -- can you please resend the PDF to David Maher Amr Elsadr:@Matt: Yes, agree. We need to agree on recommendations to use now, but the issues that have been pointed out certainly warrant further consideration. It would be irresponsible to ignore them, I think. Julie Hedlund:@Steve: Will do. Julie Hedlund:@David: Just sent to you. Farzaneh Badii:but how can we answer "how" when some object to council Steve DelBianco:@Farzi -- our assignmen tis to recommend "who" and "how". We will note a significant minority disagress that "who" shuld be council. But we need to now look at "how" steve metalitz:@Staff, my recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes. Julie Hedlund:@Steve: Captured! Marika Konings:would it be worth circulating the process from the GNSO WG Guidelines on how to designate consensus? Julie Hedlund:@Steve D.: I have picked up the language provided by Steve M. Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Sure. That'd be helpful. Marika Konings:it usually does not include voting :-) Amr Elsadr:@SDB: Agree. Edward Morris:THere is NO prohibition for the GNSO Council, constututional or otherwise, for doing what it has done. Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Again..., I'm not so sure that's right (outside of its constitutional responsibilities). Edward Morris:WHO has the powers, Steve? Amr Elsadr:@Steve: I agree on that it is unnecessary to include the GGP bit in the report. Julie Hedlund:@DT members: I have sent the WG Guidelines to the list and note section 3.6 on Standard Methodologies for Making Decisions. I can also bring up the document in the Adobe Connect room. Julie Hedlund:@All: The table on voting does not show up in the PDF. I can bring it up separately. Darcy Southwell:Yes Amr Elsadr:Yes. It was a word doc. Edward Morris:Thanks Steve Steve DelBianco:staff: could you please bring up the voting table? Julie Hedlund:@Steve: Done. steve metalitz:@Ed, just because someone cannot vote on a particular matter does not mean they have to "leave the room." Amr Elsadr:Are we done with the discussion on the NCAs? Amr Elsadr:Agreed. Thanks. Marika Konings:Looking back at the resolution forming this DT, please note that the DT is instructed to come back with consensus recommendations: "The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016." Edward Morris:Good question Steve Amr Elsadr:I'm guessing we can decide what our definition of consensus is. We are not a chartered group. Steve DelBianco:You're next, Marika Farzaneh Badii:could you please remind me why CPH votes are weighted 2? Edward Morris:Because they have half as many Council reps as the NCPH Marika Konings:@Farzaneh - to create a balance between CPH and NCPH without necessarily needing the same # of Council members steve metalitz:+1 Steve D that this has nothing todo with individuals Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Marika Amr Elsadr:OK. Thanks Marika. Marika Konings:yes, you are correct - there is no exact science to determining consensus matthew shears:These are interesting options but premature so I would have to vote no Farzaneh Badii:no Amr Elsadr:My view: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests. Amr Elsadr:Agree with Ed. Inspection requests should be as easy as requesting issue reports or initiating PDPs. Edward Morris:Thanks Steve Edward Morris:Good point. Thanks Steve M. Amr Elsadr:I believe that Council should make appointments (generally) via some sort of consensus, not a simple majority. Edward Morris:@Amr. Would the 60% level we use for Chair/VC selection be high enough of a threshold in your view? Amr Elsadr:It'd certainly be better, Ed. steve metalitz:Could someone remind us whether the 60% is 60% of each House for Chair? Marika Konings:if you look at consensus policy, supermajority meets the definition of consensus under the contracts that ICANN has with its contracted parties. Marika Konings:@STeve: The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house matthew shears:thanks Steve Farzaneh Badii:thanks everyone Terri Agnew:Next call currently scheudled for Wednesday, 28 September at 13:00 UTC Darcy Southwell:Yes, I have a conflict - can't make it Sept. 28. matthew shears:no Darcy Southwell:Yes matthew shears:probably Edward Morris:transparency steve metalitz:No to Sept. 29 Edward Morris:wg Farzaneh Badii:that's a thursday? Edward Morris:yes Terri Agnew:@Farzaneh, yes 29 Sept is a Thursday Farzaneh Badii:I gotta check my calendar. thanks Terri Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Standard methodology for making decisions
by Marika Konings Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

As mentioned in the chat, please find below the standard methodology for making decisions as per the GNSO WG Guidelines (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf) Best regards, Marika 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: · Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. · Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. · Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. · Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: · A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. · It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. v. Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

1 0

Working Group Guidelines on Consensus
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear DT members, Please see the attached Working Group Guidelines and 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions concerning reaching consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

FW: edits to page 2 of draft report
by Metalitz, Steven Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

[image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:06 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Terri Agnew'; 'Steve DelBianco' Subject: edits to page 2 of draft report [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

1 0

DT Proposal
by Edward Morris Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Hello everybody, Since our last call I've spoken with several of you as well as a few of my colleagues on Council to try to put together a proposal concerning thresholds that may find traction with some within this DT as well as on Council. The result of this effort is attached. ?I look forward to discussing matters with everyone on our call later today. ?Kind Regards, Ed Morris

3 2

fw: Role of NCA's
by Edward Morris Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Hi everybody, I've been asked to pass on the following thoughts concerning our work from GNSO Councillor Johan Helsingius. Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf(a)julf.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:54 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net> Subject: Role of NCA's Ed, With reference to the recent discussion touching on the role and purpose of NomCom appointees in the GNSO council, I just wanted to reiterate my very strong view, based on my experience as NCA, that the NCA's should be full participants in all issues before the Council. This most definitely includes the new community powers - I do believe the NCAs have a very strong role. Julf

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear DT Members, Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Wednesday, 21 September at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached draft Report for discussion as well as the notes from our last call below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call/Statements of Interest 2. Review Agenda 3. DT to discuss draft report (attached) -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds 4. Next steps to finalize the report 5. Schedule of the final meeting/call GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, 15 September 2016 Actions/Discussion Notes 1. DT to continue review of table and discussion of decision-making under various scenarios. · Summary of discussion on Scenario 1: Assume GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO, but without assuming the current default voting threshold (majority of each house). · Discussion of other voting thresholds for 3 types of Empowered Community (EC) actions: o Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc. o Approve decisions/actions available to the EC; o Exercise document inspection / investigation rights Action Items: 1. DT members should review the attached Council Votes Excel spreadsheet and add their own tests. 2. Steve DelBianco will work with staff to draft an initial version of the implementation plan to be sent in time for discussion at the next call at 1300 UTC on Wednesday, 21 September. Discussion Notes: Steve D.: Recap from 07 September meeting: straw poll suggests that we would proceed as if the Council speaks for the GNSO. Note that the DT could review the staff analysis use of "Council" versus "GNSO" in the Bylaws (see attached document). Steve M.: GNSO Supermajority - 2/3s of each House -- in the Bylaws. My constituency does not agree that the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO on non-PDP actions. I recognize that is a minority viewpoint in this group. Steve D.: I think the notes reflect that, but we have to achieve consensus in this DT. Correct: GNSO Supermajority implies Council. Suggests that there isn't ambiguity in the Bylaws, so that the drafters meant Council. Agree that the Bylaws seem unambiguous? Steve M.: Yes, where that is recorded. Steve D.: Given that we just have two weeks to the deadline I propose that the Council speaks to the GNSO. Now we move to the voting threshold for 3 types of decisions. If we come up with those thresholds they can be mapped to the Bylaws. Types of decisions are: · Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc.; · Approve decisions/actions available to the Empowered Community (such as a petition); · Exercise document inspection / investigation rights. Kinds of thresholds that could work: Default threshold -- Majority of each House including the NCA reps. Council has used the default rule for non-policy decisions. Investigate whether we want to recommend a different set of threshold that don't divide the world by House for these three categories because of the transition. Steve M.: There are 3 types of actions. 1) approving nominations. We first discussed this as a "who" question. 2) yes/no, or support/not support. 3) document inspection/investigation rights. There are several other places where the GNSO can act as a participant under the new Bylaws that are not necessarily EC activities. Inspection is one example, but there are others. Should we expand the third category? There also is 22.8 determining a credible allegation of fraud or mismanagement that a decisional participant can make. There are some others. Ed: Concerning the Decisional Participant I thought it was clear that this was the GNSO's representative to the EC. Steve M.: So 22.8, joint written certification, the GNSO signs on to a determination, but it is the constituents that determine that there is a credible fraud. You [question to Steve D.] would put that in a decision of the EC? Steve D.: Yes. Because a Decisional Participant is an artifact of the EC. On the first category I was saying that these are nominations resulting from the new Bylaws. Ed: 22.8 is a mixed bag. We have to act in concert, but we can institute it ourselves. We have to make sure we have a way to start the request for an investigation. Steve M.: 22.8 is another type of decision. I tend to agree that we could put it under the second type. Steve B.: Either way we need voting threshold for how to instruct the Decisional Participant representative. We still have to agree on voting thresholds that deviate from majority of each House, only for these kinds of decisions. Ed: You can add 22.7 to 22.8 -- says the "Chair" of the Decisional Participant that is making the request. It is outside of the EC. Steve B.: The EC is the sole designator and the Decisional Participants are the entities that participate. Is that right? Ed: We could have a Decisional Participant working outside of the EC, such as a document request under inspection rights. Steve B.: There are Advisory Committees [SSAC & RSSAC] that are outside of the EC and they don't have the right of inspection. David: I have heard nothing that would support a departure from the default role [GNSO Council deciding for the GNSO]. Steve D.: The majority of participants on the last call were in favor of moving away from a split House for nominations. David: Maintaining the principle of each House is paramount. There must still be a voting rule attached to each House. Matthew: We seem to be jumping into the exceptions to the default rule. Steve D.: The default rule is already baked into the Bylaws. Steve M.: Two other provisions I identified that might fall within the third category (yes/no decisions not necessarily within Empowered Community) : 17.3(b): determining method of review of effectiveness of CSC ; 4.3(b): GNSO as claimant in reconsideration/IRP. Farzi: Question re: NCA -- do they bring more balance to the decision? Steve D.: Balance would be for NCPH and CPH to have equal votes. Ed: From talking to people I’m not getting consensus on what the NCAs are supposed to do. David: I agree that the function of NCA is an open question. Steve M.: One element of accountability is the power to hire and fire. No group of GNSO can divest the NCA, so they are unaccountable. Ed: The Council also cannot divest a current member of the Council. NCAs are accountable to the GNSO or to the NomCom. Steve D.: We have divided views on NCA role and having them vote. Look at the test cases [see attached Excel document “Council Votes”] -- you could achieve a majority of Councilors (without NCAs) in several scenarios. Steve M.: One way to look at it might be to say how would the results be different as compared to the status quo? Test D: 58.3% "Yes" votes. Would not have a majority in each house. Same as Test E -- 10/2. Darcy: This is under the current structure. What happens if there are new Constituencies/SGs? Steve B.: Relevant, but not necessarily to this work. Darcy: Disagree that it's not relevant. Ed: As long as we keep the balance of power I am not opposed to not following the house structure for votes related to the EC. Steve M.: Darcy is right. If there are new SGs and Cs that could scramble things. Ed: I could live with a voting threshold model for votes within Council on EC decisions. David: I think we are overlooking the way the Council votes in different scenarios, looking at the threshold table, such as the GNSO Guidance Process. We need the fundamental fairness of the House structure. Steve D.: The GGP preserves the House structure. 2. Next Steps: Discussion Notes: Steve D.: We need to start writing. I will work with staff for a draft report in the next few days. We will need to discuss the report for two calls. Could be hard to get consensus. How many want to propose something other than a majority of each house? Steve M.: You have majority of each House or GNSO supermajority. Look at the test cases or the House structure. Steve D.: Here is our plan: Review the report on the next call. Determine how close to consensus we are. A description of the table would be in the report. We expect it could be a 4-5-page report. The goal to get it to you prior to next Wednesdays call.

1 0

first draft of our DT report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 18, 2016

Sept. 18, 2016

As promised on our last call, here’s a first draft of our DT report. We have only 2 weeks to complete our implementation recommendations, so it’s time to see where we can find consensus. DT members are invited to comment on how I’ve described our work thus far, but I do hope that you’ll focus on the last page — how we move towards implementation recommendations. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:36 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Subject: GNSO Council voting scenarios Drafting Team members: attached is that excel sheet I created to test voting thresholds other than the “default threshold" in ICANN’s bylaws: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. (Section 11.3 (i) ) The columns labeled “Test Cases" in this spreadsheet are there for you to contemplate scenarios where a majority (or even a supermajority) of Councilors agree, but where the "default threshold” could not be met. Have fun adding your own Tests! Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

2 1