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

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 12, 2019

Sept. 12, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder. Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 18 September 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. 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…> 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

1 0

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 18 September 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. 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…> 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

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 04 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=115641577. 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: 1. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: DT agrees to come back to this document when the work on 2.2/2.3, and 3.1/3.2/3.3 is completed. 2. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT members will review the document, particularly new text in 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, which reflects the two feedback options for the community. To facilitate the review, the latest updates (especially the text in Section 5.2) are still in the redline form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT will review the document. Staff have updated Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.11 to incorporate the proposed changes with regard to the timeline. Please feel free to suggest edits and comment directly on the Google Doc: 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. 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…> a. Staff will circulate the document link; and b. DT will review the document. 5. 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…> a. Staff will circulate the document; and b. DT will review the document. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP…> -- The ccNSO GRC represented by Katrina Sataki and Bart Boswinkel had some comments that conflicted. Staff arranged a call with Heather, Katrina, and Bart with staff. Got clarification on their concerns about the timeline. They also wanted a plain language approach. -- Staff, Heather, and David made extensive changes to address the GRC ccNSO edits and clarify the document, particularly the timeline. -- The DT has a lot of work to finish, so we didn’t see the point to stop that work and go back. -- Given that the joint consultation is a different animal and involves consultation with another group, we propose that we pause this and come back to it after the work is completed on 2.2 & 2.3, and 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 and sent that package to the GNSO Council. -- This will extend the work plan/timeline slightly. -- For the rest of the package we could get the GNSO Council to sign off on it in Montreal, and also ceremoniously sign off on the joint guidelines. -- Agree to park this document until after the rest of the work is done. 3. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Section 5.2: 5.2.1 GNSO Community Feedback Before Rejection Action Community Forum 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After Rejection Action Community Forum -- DT members should review the new text, which reflects the two feedback options for the community. 4. 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…> In the table on page 3, Addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures: 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions concerning a director removal process submitted by an individual must be submitted directly to the GNSO Council. -- Bylaws are not specific on how an individual should submit a petition. This language here is inconsistent with section 4.1 -- The language in the Bylaws says they are subject to the internal procedures of the Decisional Participant. If we want to go through SGs/Cs then we should develop a procedure to do that. -- Look at what we have written in the rejection action petition process. The basic should be a reasonable balance. -- Don’t think the SGs and Cs have to be factored into the discussion, but an individual acting alone has no ability to obligate the Decisional Participant to take a decision. -- Individuals don’t generally have the ability to contact the Council directly. An individual can’t post to the list. The communication should go through the Councilors. -- At the end of the day this has to come down to a motion, which has to come from an SG/C. The Bylaws will let us have procedures for an individual to submit – could add language that it could submit to the SG/C or the GNSO Council. “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) to the GNSO Council directly.” -- Does the above mean that the SG/C has to approve the petition? Need to alert the Council/Councilors that the SGs/Cs will need their own procedures to deal with petitions and also be alerted to the timing. -- If it is through an SG/C that would start the clock, and the only way to do that would be as a pass through. -- We may need to get a legal opinion on what an “individual” means. -- There is an argument to be made that an individual submitting to the GNSO should have a tie to the GNSO. But some might ask why the submission be limited. We could get in trouble to creating barriers. There should be no need for us to create eligibility rules. -- The motion is the control factor. -- 4.1 Who is eligible to submit the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition to the GNSO Council? ACTION: Review the revised language at the top of page 5 and consider whether that addresses the instances where we talk about individual submissions. “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.” 4.2.3 Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition Review and Certification, page 5: -- The individual can resubmit, but we don’t have to include in our guidelines a process for doing so. -- 2.2/2.3 permits resubmission (so issue of consistency). Timeline, page 10: Day 10/Day 15 -- Can we get back a few days. Should the dialog invite goes out on day 10 and should it be shorter than 15 days? Could it start right after day 2? There is a gap between day 2 and day 10. If we move the consultation up then we can move forward the rest of the deadlines. -- 15 days seem long, but what the Director might be charged with could be complex. Maybe the dialog has to be done by day 10, but not shorter.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Drafting Team | Wednesday, 04 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 5, 2019

Sept. 5, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Drafting Team call held on Wednesday, 04 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/6YzkBg> (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

DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Continue Review 3.1
by Ariel Liang Sept. 4, 2019

Sept. 4, 2019

Dear Drafting Team, Per action items of today’s call, please be so kind to do the final review of the Google Doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). To facilitate your review, the latest updates (especially the text in Section 5.2) are still in the redline form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… In addition, please continue your review of the Google Doc for 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal). Staff have updated Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.11 to incorporate the proposed changes with regard to the timeline. Please feel free to suggest edits and comment directly on the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc… FYI, the Google Doc links for 3.2 and 3.3 are included below: * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org

1 0

DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Initial Review of 3.1/3.2/3.3
by Ariel Liang Sept. 4, 2019

Sept. 4, 2019

Dear Drafting Team, Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your final input/feedback. In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to: * 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period. The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input. Please use the links below to access the documents: * 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… * 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…> * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org

4 4

Fwd: Update on Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community Drafting Team work
by Heather Forrest Sept. 4, 2019

Sept. 4, 2019

Dear DT colleagues, In advance of our call, please see below my email to the GNSO Council leadership team earlier this week updating as to our progress and suggestions re meeting attendance, a public session in Cancun, and how to deal with final sign-off on 18.12 Joint Consultation Guidelines with the ccNSO. An update on the Joint Consultation Guidelines is on our agenda for this week - Julie, Ariel and I will provide more detailed information then. I understand Keith's reply to be supportive of where we are and what is proposed in terms of next steps. We are, hooray!, coming to the end of our efforts with the work on 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 in this week's call. To streamline and economise your work, if you haven't already reviewed the drafts that Ariel and Julie circulated at the end of our last call, if you can spare an hour between now and the call, review 3.1. You'll find later that 3.2 and 3.3 are nearly identical in terms of process, it's just the trigger for the process that differs. Julie, Ariel, David and I have been in all 3 docs and making various typographical, consistency and clean-up type edits over the past 2 weeks. With each wave of edits, Ariel has gone back over all 3 docs to clean them up, so that we're not faced with a horribly messy document for our call. She's frankly done an amazing job at keeping up with all the tinkering. There are some major issues of substance to focus on in our call this week - I urge us to resist the temptation to engage in wordsmithing during the call, so that we can be sure to get through 3.1 in its entirety while we're together. The tinkering and review of the other two docs, 3.2 and 3.3, I'm confident can be done offline after we've finished discussing 3.1. With best wishes to everyone, and looking forward to catching up with you in a bit more than 12 hours, Heather ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Subject: RE: Update on Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community Drafting Team work To: haforrestesq(a)gmail.com <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com < pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> Cc: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, ariel.liang(a)icann.org <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, marika.konings(a)icann.org <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, mary.wong(a)icann.org <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Hi Heather, Thanks very much to you and to the members of the Drafting Team. This is great news and I look forward to the opportunity to engage the group during our October Council meeting. Rafik, Pam and I will discuss further during our upcoming leadership call, and we’ll get back to you with any follow-up questions. Your recommendations below are noted! Best regards, Keith *From:* Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 02, 2019 7:31 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; Ariel Liang < ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Update on Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community Drafting Team work Dear Keith, Rafik, Pam, I hope this message finds the three of you and your Council colleagues very well. I write on behalf of the Drafting Team tasked with developing Guidelines & Templates for the GNSO’s Role in the Empowered Community to update you on our progress on our work plan. I am pleased to report that we are on track to submit our work to the GNSO Council in time for the October meeting document deadline, as shown here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n… One discrete element of our work, the development of Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on the Initiation of a Special IFR, has required close cooperation with our counterparts serving on the ccNSO's Guidelines Review Committee. There have been several rounds of substantial revisions to the initial draft Guidelines text, with suggested edits from both the GNSO and ccNSO participants. Rather than deviate from its current work plan and momentum, the Drafting Team proposes to return to the ccNSO's most recent suggestions on the Joint Consultation guidelines *after *submitting the remainder of its work to the GNSO Council in time for the Council's October meeting. It has been suggested that the Joint Consultation Guidelines could be symbolically submitted to both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils in time for their respective November meetings, so that they could be discussed in the joint meeting of the Councils in Montreal and, if appropriate, jointly agreed in Montreal. If the GNSO Council supports this course of action, the Drafting Team will continue its work as in the work plan linked above and the Council will receive by 14 October all of the DT's guidelines and motion templates except the Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on the Initiation of a Special IFR. The Drafting Team has also identified some issues that lie beyond the scope of the DT's work for subsequent follow-up by the GNSO Council. These will be documented in the covering note from the DT to the GNSO Council. If the GNSO Council finds it useful, the Drafting Team will be very pleased to attend the October and/or November GNSO Council meetings to answer any questions or provide an introduction on the guidelines and motion templates. We will also be very happy to explain the involvement with the ccNSO in developing the Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on the Initiation of a Special IFR, and how this might proceed in Montreal. We also suggest that the Council consider submitting a meeting request for ICANN67 Cancun for a public session (HIT or similar) to present the guidelines and templates to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Various of the GNSO's responsibilities as a member of the EC and a Decisoinal Participant involve some action that commences by or is communicated through or requires input from the SG/Cs. We believe that it would be helpful to clearly identify these to the SG/C communities directly so that they can reflect upon their own charters and internal procedures to determine if changes are required at the SG/C level. We remain very willing to answer any questions that the Council may have about our work. Best wishes, Heather Forrest Drafting Team Chair

1 0

REMINDER - DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Initial Review of 3.1/3.2/3.3
by Ariel Liang Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

Dear Drafting Team, This is a gentle reminder to provide your input feedback for the final review of Google Docs of 2.2/2.3, as well as the initial review of 3.1/3.2/3.3. Kindly review the documents in advance of next week’s meeting on 4 September. Thank you, Julie & Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 12:22 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Initial Review of 3.1/3.2/3.3 Dear Drafting Team, Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your final input/feedback. In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to: * 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period. The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input. Please use the links below to access the documents: * 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… * 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWc…> * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10… * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbm…> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder. Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 04 September at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. 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…> 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

1 0

Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 04 September at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting Wednesday, 04 September at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Update on Coordination with ccNSO GRC re: 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daP… 3. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. 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…> 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

1 0