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

Update to SOI
by Heather Forrest Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, For the completeness of our DT records, I would like to disclose that I have updated my SOI to reflect that I have been elected President of the Intellectual Property Constituency. Per the unique features of the IPC's Bylaws, I will commence in the role on 1 December, at which point I expect our substantive work will be done and behind us. Nevertheless, I believe it's good practice to be fully transparent and accountable about leadership roles. If you have any concerns (including for my sanity in the year ahead!), please don't hesitate to let me know. Very best wishes, Heather

2 1

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2019

Oct. 8, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October 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. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel

9 11

Fwd: Trial Run: Approval Action - Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Composition
by Heather Forrest Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, Correspondence with Council leadership to update on our progress and begin preparing for Montreal, below. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:31 PM Subject: Re: Trial Run: Approval Action - Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Composition To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: Drazek, Keith via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org>, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> Thanks very much, Ariel, for providing these (as yet draft) guidelines and the timeline. The GNSO DT is winding up its work in the next 12 days to be in a position to provide you with the complete set of Guidelines and Templates for carrying out EC Responsibilities. The timing of the ccNSO's action is a tiny bit unfortunate (I would have loved to have our full slate of Guidelines and Templates approved by Council beforehand), but as it's quite an uncontroversial amendment to the Bylaws, I personally don't think we're faced with a real panic here. As the DT won't be able to send you the final version of this guideline until Monday 14th October (it will receive a final review next week by a DT member for completeness' sake, and ICANN Legal is also reviewing for any issues) we thought it best to communicate the pre-final version to you to help Council prepare. All going to plan, you will be able to put on the October agenda the DT's full package of Guidelines and Templates (notably missing one thing, the Joint Consultation Guidelines, still in progress with ccNSO and to be finalised prior to ICANN66, as per my earlier email on this topic). The full package is lengthy and complex, so that suggests there are two possible paths - you might wish to put the item as a discussion item in October, then vote in November (at which point you could also vote on the ccNSO Joint Consultation Guidelines) and have the benefit of between now and ICANN66 for all those who want to do a deep dive into the docs. Alternatively, you could go straight to voting item in October, and then vote solely on the ccNSO Joint Consultation Guideline in November in Montreal. Both are do-able, it's really Council's prerogative/workload at present. Regardless of the path you choose, DT members (I and others) will be very happy to attend the relevant Council meetings to explain or answer any questions. I'm also very happy to talk you through anything or help in any way in preparation for the Community Forum scheduled in Montreal. Best wishes, Heather On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:17 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hello Keith and all, > > > > As you may be aware, the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team has developed a proposed > guideline > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXc2TQCv4ArMo0LPzTrLncIG_JwSnuQqV05xvrA…> > in response to Approval Action, including the current one regarding the > approval of Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function > Review Composition. Although the guideline has not been finalized by the > Drafting Team or formally adopted by the GNSO Council, it may be helpful to > leverage this opportunity and conduct a “trial run” based on the proposed > guideline. > > > > According to the draft ICANN66 schedule, the Approval Action Community > Forum will be held on Sunday, 3 November at 8:30-9:00 local time for the > purpose of considering the proposed amendments. > > > > To simplify the process, staff have developed two timetables of GNSO > actions *before* and *after* the Approval Action Community Forum: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Q6nQj9V9lOI4044ZWzPQP4_GDB_mr3B-tjOva2… > > > > We also copied Heather in this email, so she could provide > counsel/clarification as needed. > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. > > > > Best Regards, > > Julie & Ariel > > > > > > *From: *council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, > Keith via council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Reply-To: *"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 1:45 PM > *To: *"council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Cc: *"gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *[council] ACTION REQUESTED: Empowered Community "Approval > Action Community Forum" in Montreal -- GNSO Council and SG/C Views > > > > Hi all, > > > > On 19 September 2019, the ICANN Board Secretary delivered this letter > [icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> > to the Empowered Community, providing formal notice to the EC > Administration and Decisional Participants that on 8 September 2019, the > ICANN Board approved an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws at Article 18, > Section 18.7(b) regarding changes to the IANA Naming Function Review Team > composition. > > > > As you’ll recall, the ccNSO proposed this amendment due to difficulties in > identifying a non-ccNSO ccTLD manager for the IFRT. > > > > Within the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process, the Empowered Community > now requires an Approval Action Community Forum to convene for the purpose > of considering the proposed amendments. The EC Administration has already > requested that the Approval Action Community Forum convene during ICANN’s > 66th public meeting. ICANN and any Supporting Organization or Advisory > Committee may deliver to the EC Administration its views and questions on > the Approval Action in advance of the Approval Action Community Forum. > > > > *ACTION: As such, to help inform Council deliberations in advance of ICANN > 66, please share this with your respective SGs and Cs to identify any > concerns or questions. * > > > > The Empowered Community Approval Action Process is set out in full at > Annex D, Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws. The timeline for the Empowered > Community’s exercise of this Approval Action Process will be tracked, > including the associated deadlines, at https://www.icann.org/ec > [icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_ec&d=DwM…> > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Keith > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Wednesday, 02 October 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 02 October 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/2JMCBw> (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, Terri

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 02 October 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=117609432. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition and related 4.2.3: Change 4.2.3 to reflect that the Council leadership looks at the petition to see if it meets the requirements, the leadership can alert the petitioner to gaps, the petitioner has a reasonable amount of time to resubmit, and if there is no correct and complete petition then the process is terminated. 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Resolve the comment. 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Add “The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council. The entire GNSO Council will participate in the vote.” 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: Ask Mary Wong to check with her Team to make sure we are compliant (given the 7-day comment period from the Bylaws). 3.3 Board Recall: David will suggest some language/approach on the list. Next Steps for Reviewing all Guidelines: Heather and staff will suggest an approach. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Tatiana Tropina moved to the Hague and started a new position with the government. 2. AOB: a. Meeting with GRC on 21 October at 12:00 UTC – moving forward on joint consultation guidelines on 18.12 b. Dry Run of Approval Action – schedule a dry run for ICANN66. 3. Continue Discussion: 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Suppose a petition is made, and it doesn't meet the requirements (these, as set out in 4.2.2, are pretty basic). Can another, new application be immediately submitted? Any limit on the timing between the old and new application? I personally am not convinced that this is a major issue that needs addressing, given how basic the requirements of 4.2.2 are. Note the related comment in 4.2.3 (ie, if GNSO Council leadership finds that the petition doesn't meet requirements, can applicant immediately resubmit?) Julie and David agree that immediate submission isn't appropriate. Again, I'm not convinced it's a major problem, unless we're thinking we are going to have vexatious filings. Discussion: -- If you haven’t submitted a petition properly the first time, probably don’t want to encourage a resubmission. Should there be a time limitation? What if there are new circumstances? What about fixing errors? -- 4.2.3 – Council Leadership reviews for procedural check, not substantive (which happens later). Admin review allows more wiggle room. -- GNSO community feedback, especially from the House that appointed the Director, can inform the decision by the Council in terms of the substance of the petition? -- And btw, the ‘rationale’ part for the petition is not required by the bylaws. -- Could give Council leadership the authority to communicate with the petitioner to fill in anything missing. ACTION: 4.2.3 Change to reflect that the Council leadership looks at the petition to see if it meets the requirements, the leadership can alert the petitioner to gaps, the petitioner has a reasonable amount of time to resubmit, and if there is no correct and complete petition then the process is terminated. 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Should both Houses be invited to give feedback on the one House's director? Given that the feedback is not dispositive of the outcome, but merely to inform a decision by Council, I personally am of the view that feedback from the "other" House shouldn't be prevented. I believe the wording here ("especially for those that belong in the applicable GNSO House that appointed the affected Director") make clear that the emphasis is on affected House, and is appropriate, but no need to go further to restrict the other House from "provid[ing] feedback, opinions, or comments on the merits of the Petition." Discussion: Agreed. ACTION: Resolve the comment. 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Since the voting requirement is at least 3/4 of the Councilors from the GNSO House that appointed the affected Director, does the entire Council need to meet for this vote? I believe that we should not set a precedent of only some Councillors meeting. The GNSO Operating Procedures make clear that we need quorum for a meeting to be held, and that's both Houses. So yes, I believe that the entire Council (both Houses) should meet. I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council.") is excellent and makes good sense. Discussion: -- Concern about accountability – whether to let the other house vote, or just participate in a discussion? -- Is there any connection between this vote and the vote at the end (approval of the petition) for a supermajority vote? -- Having the full Council meet to vote provides a fuller record. -- No matter how the other house votes, if the affected house doesn’t get 3/4 of the votes, the petition won’t go forward. -- Question: In case the petition is submitted by somebody from the other house - or from elsewhere - could you imagine how enthusiastically the motion would be drafted? Shouldn't it be a task for the council leadership? -- Note, any individual may submit a petition for consideration and if the Council deems that it meets the requirements, the House that appointed the director is expected to submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council and to include the information as required per the ICANN Bylaws. -- But the affected House is the party that put the Director there, so they should remove. ACTION: Add “The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council. The entire GNSO Council will participate in the vote.” 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: From Heather: I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("All GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are free to participate in this Comment Period in accordance with their own internal procedures and Bylaws.") work very well to specify what goes on in the Community Forum. ACTION: Ask Mary Wong to check with her Team to make sure we are compliant (given the 7-day comment period from the Bylaws). 3.3 Board Recall: From David McCauley: On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? ACTION: David will suggest some language/approach on the list.

1 0

Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars! Announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-09-16-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> To attend any of the below webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeksi…> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann 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 [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Update of 2.2/2.3 & 3.1/3.2/3.3 Guidelines
by Ariel Liang Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Dear All, Following today’s call, staff have revised the proposed guidelines for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action), 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal), 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal), and 3.3 (Board Recall). In light of today’s discussions, the changes are mainly related to who/how/where a Petition shall be submitted, as well as clarification on when the clock starts. In addition, staff also revised additional sections to clarify certain GNSO actions. We would like to highlight the redline edits and comments in the following sections for your review: 2.2/2.3 Rejection Action: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… Sections 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.10, 4.3.6, 5.1, 6.1 3.1 NomCom Director Removal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 3.3 Board Recall: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm… Sections 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 5.1, 6.1 Please review these revisions and provide your comments/suggested edits, if any. Thank you! Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 26 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 26 September 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117608742. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Deposito…. Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal), 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? ACTION ITEM 1: On the issue of the definition of “individual” for the purpose of submitting a petition: Need to convey the depth of the discussion when presenting to the Council. Also link to the transcript. Also make sure the language is consistent in the motion templates. ACTION ITEM 2: On the issue of submission of a petition to a Decisional Participant and whether a petition can go to an SG/C: Add a note, "Such Petition can be submitted directly to the Council, transmitted through a SG/C, or through other channels. However, as per 4.2.1 below the date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Petition Period". Link to this transcript for reference in a footnote. Also make sure the language is consistent in the motion templates. Section 2.2 (Petition Process for Specific Actions) and Section 2.3 (Rejection Action Community Forum) 4.1 Who is eligible to submit a Rejection Action Petition to the GNSO Council? Per Section 2.2(b) of Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, “an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a "Rejection Action Petition").” “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council.” ACTION ITEM 3: Ariel will check Bylaws section 2.2(b) and circulate a note to the DT. She also will check the motion templates for consistency. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Heather Forrest has been nominated for the position of IPC President. 2. Continue Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? Three Points: 1. Individuals 2. Decisional Participant 3. Process if a Petition Goes to an SG/C – What To Do? 1. Individual -- Individual means anyone – not necessarily limited to the GNSO community. -- If it is an individual within the ICANN community, could be outside the GNSO community. -- Could it be an individual outside the ICANN community? The ICANN community is all interest registrants and users. So that’s not limiting. We’d have to say “member of an AC/SO” to limit things. -- Bylaws don’t allow us to define “individual” narrowly. Can be any person. -- Since we don’t have a clear definition, we should hope it is a human being – not a bot. ACTION: Need to convey the depth of the discussion when presenting to the Council. Also link to the transcript. 2. Decisional Participant and 3. Process if a Petition Goes to an SG/C – What To Do? “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to: 1) a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council; or 2) the GNSO Council directly.” -- Bylaws Annex D, 3.1 – needs to be submitted to a “Decisional Participant”. -- Have to interpret Decisional Participant as the GNSO. The functional body is the GNSO Council. -- The language that introduces the section – GNSO, ccNSO, etc. could come up with a procedure that the petition could be submitted to an SG/C, but how they choose to receive it is up to them. If it is delivered to an SG/C then that is when the clock starts. In the case of the GNSO, the clock starts when the petition is received by the GNSO Council. -- This opens the question of whether should be having other procedures? Do we want to say that the petition goes to Council and once it goes there then the clock starts ticking. Set up a special mail box that will send an alert to Council. -- Make it clear that if the petition is submitted to the SG/C the clock starts ticking when the GNSO Council receives it. -- Note in 4.2.1: “The date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Period” -- Revise 4.1 to say: “Such a petition must be submitted to the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant, to its representative body, the GNSO Council. This can occur via an SG/C or directly.” -- When we have a clause that says that delivery can go via the SG/C then that would start the clock. -- Change to: “If an SG/C receives a petition, that petition must be forwarded to the GNSO Council.” ACTION: Add a note, “"Such Petition can be submitted directly to the Council, transmitted through a SG/C, or through other channels. However, as per 4.2.1 below the date when the GNSO Council receives a Petition marks the beginning of the Petition Period". Link to this transcript for reference in a footnote. Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specific Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… 4.1 Who is eligible to submit a Rejection Action Petition to the GNSO Council? Per Section 2.2(b) of Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, “an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a "Rejection Action Petition").” “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council.” -- Make consistent with 3.1? Yes. -- Note that the timing is different, but keep it consistent with the other guidelines and at Bylaws 2.2(b). ACTION: Ariel will check Bylaws section 2.2(b) and circulate a note to the DT. Also will check the motion templates.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/JpECBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/_pUWBg>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Meeting invitation: GNSO Drafting Team call / Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

As discussed last week, I believe the clock should not start until GNSO Council receives the petition. So I am also aligned with Heather’s view. On 9/26/19, 10:38 AM, " Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" wrote: I like your interpretation and am in full support. BTW this again shows me that lawyers and techies are often following a similar logic in procedural matters ;-). To bring the interpretation of Annex D section 3.1 (a) to perfection we should be clear about the origin of the "individual". Is here a "GNSO-relationship" requested? Or could any individual with or without any DP-related affiliation submit a petition to any of the DPs? The latter may open the individual searching for the most likely "removal-friendly" DP. Am 26.09.2019 um 14:07 schrieb Heather Forrest: Reminder to all that we have our extra call this week (in roughly 9 hours). Our sole focus in this extra call is to reach a decision on how/to whom to submit a petition to remove a director. We need to interpret Bylaws Annex D in the GNSO context. I have read this again carefully and reviewed the recordings from our previous calls. Here is my interpretation as a strawman for our call: The language of Annex D section 3.1 ((a) "Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant...") tells me that the key terms are "individual" and "Decisional Participant". As I understand our previous calls, we all agree (in this contexts and elsewhere in our work) that "individual" means anyone. The term is not defined in the Bylaws. Then in Annex D section 3.1 (b), ("During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition..."), this tells me that the clock starts when the Decisional Participant receives the petition. Article 6, section 6.1 defines "Decisional Participant": (a) The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO (as defined in Section 10.1), the GNSO (as defined in Section 11.1), the ALAC (as defined in Section 12.2(d)(i)) and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants"). Annex D, Section 3.1(b) therefore can be read: "During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition), this tells us that the clock starts when the GNSO receives the petition." Section 11.2 of the Bylaws describes the GNSO as "consist[ing] of" "[a] Number of Constituencies"... "organized within the Stakeholder Groups". I do not understand 11.2 to allow us to interpret any single constituency or Stakeholder Group individually as the GNSO. Rather, the GNSO consists of all of those. Back to Annex D, Section 3.1(b), my view is that "when the GNSO receives the petition" means the GNSO as a whole, not any individual SG or C. For matters of the EC, the GNSO Council acts for the GNSO as a whole. Hence the clock starts ticking when the GNSO Council receives the petition. If the "individual" in Annex D section 3.1(a) submits the petition to something other than the GNSO Council, the clock has not yet started. That's not to say that an individual is prevented from submitting to an SG/C, but it seems to me that the SG/C is obliged to send on to the Council ASAP, without debate or discussion. Annex D doesn't give us any ground to enable an SG or C to delay or discuss, and further, "individual" means the petitioner, not an SG or C. I have copied the relevant Annex D section 3.1(a) and (b) below. For ease, link to the full Bylaws here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD Heather ARTICLE 3 PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISE OF EC'S RIGHTS TO REMOVE DIRECTORS AND RECALL THE BOARD Section 3.1. NOMINATING COMMITTEE DIRECTOR REMOVAL PROCESS (a) Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant seeking to remove a Director holding Seats 1 through 8 and initiate the Nominating Committee Director Removal Process ("Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition"). Each Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition shall set forth the rationale upon which such individual seeks to remove such Director. The process set forth in this Section 3.1 of Annex D is referred to herein as the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Process." (b) During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition (such date of receipt, the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date") and ending at 11:59 p.m. (as calculated by local time at the location of ICANN's principal office) on the date that is the 21st day after the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Date (as it relates to a particular Director, the "Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Period"), the Decisional Participant that has received a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition ("Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioned Decisional Participant") shall either accept or reject such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition; provided that a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioned Decisional Participant shall not accept a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition if, during the same term, the Director who is the subject of such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition had previously been subject to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition that led to a Nominating Committee Director Removal Community Forum (as discussed in Section 3.1(e) of this Annex D).

2 1