Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 21 August 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=115639465. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor.... Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 1. 18.12 Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will work with Heather and Bart to resolve issues and send the final draft to the DT to review. 2. Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum: a. Staff will accept all changes, resolve all comments, except for those identified in 5.2 and elsewhere (as indicated in the notes below) and send to the DT to review (DONE). b. The DT will review the document and provide comments/suggestions, if any, prior to the next meeting on 04 September. c. In the cover note to the Council with these guidelines note that there needs to be some kind of a session, perhaps in Cancun, where we walk the SGs and Cs through these documents and make sure they understand that they cannot hinder a petition. 3. Section 3.1 Nominating Committee Director removal process, Section 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal Process, Section 3.3 Board recall process: a. Staff will send the documents to the DT for review (DONE). b. DT will review the documents and provide comments/suggestions, if any, prior to the meeting on 04 September. 4. AOB: Form a group of volunteers and ask each to review one of the guidelines documents for clarity and against the Bylaws. 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/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm...> -- Katrina and Bart put comments into the document, but Katrina’s were put into an older version. -- Ariel has tried to rationalize the changes, but we need to clarify comments with Bart during meeting on 22 August. -- Get the changes nailed down in order to get the revised draft to the DT. -- Question: Are the changes just clarifications, or are they substantive? Answer: Katrina’s comments went to clarity. Those are easy to fix. Bart’s comments have changed substance in ways that don’t work for the GNSO. We will need to resolve them. 3. Final Discussion: Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum (07 August): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Page 5, Section 4.1: -- Checked on the language about an individual and whether an individual had standing to submit a petition. Added clarifying language from the Bylaws. -- Question: How are the SGs and Cs involved in that process? The SGs and Cs will have to deal with the petition, but this could be done in different ways. The Council does not dictate their internal processes, as these are governed by their Bylaws/Charters, and procedures. -- Whatever the internal SGs and Cs procedures are, it is important that they do not limit the ability of the individual to file a petition. It needs to be a pass-through mechanism. -- Change the language to say that the petition “must” come through the SG or C. ACTION ITEM: Need to put this into the cover note to the Council with these guidelines: that there needs to be some kind of a session, perhaps in Cancun, where we walk the SGs and Cs through these documents and make sure they understand that they cannot hinder a petition. Page 6, Section 4.2.2: -- Put in two sub bullet points to make it clear that the provision applies to both (a) and (b). Page 7, Section 4.2.3: -- Per David McCauley change the text to include “if time permits”: The Petitioner may revise and resubmit the Petition, if time permits, noting that however, the updated Petition must be re-submitted no later than the tenth (10) day into the Rejection Action Petition Submission period (as defined in Section 4.2.1 above). Page 10, Section 4.2.8: -- Don't need this bullet point: "A statement whether a Rejection Action Community Forum is requested". Page 13, Section 4.3.5: -- Check the Bylaws to see if a notice needs: A supporting rationale in reasonable detail; Contact information of the GNSO Representative on the EC Administration; Page 14, Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (new sections): -- Is this needed before a community forum: SGs and Cs Feedback on their support for, objection to, or abstention from the Rejection Action under consideration; -- Question re: timing of compilation of feedback. -- Need to clarify the community input process before and after the community forum (see new sections). -- One difference: It seems that the GNSO should have the ability to develop its position internally to be unified in its response at the community forum. But the Bylaws don’t speak to this. Also, there is some uncertainty in the timing and it may be difficult for the GNSO to develop its position, so the new section includes flexibility. ACTION ITEM: DT members should review these new sections and comments. Page 16, Section 5.3: -- Re: “The GNSO Council shall: Take a decision via a simple majority vote [as per the GNSO Operating Procedures] on a motion whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Rejection Action” Page 17, changes to the timeline: -- Keep these in so they can be reviewed along with the new sections noted above as they relate to Section 5.2 and new sections. Page 19, Motion Template Additional Paragraphs: -- Dragged formal actions into motion 1 as a cohesive motion relating to making the EC Rep the contact/liaison with the petitioner. The actions that were deleted were not needed. -- Note that these are motion templates, so they can be customized. Page 23, as to whether a motion is needed for community input: -- Add: to the extent the Council has the time, the GNSO may develop and document a GNSO unified position in the form of a motion. 4. Begin Discussion: Section 3.1 Nominating Committee Director removal process, Section 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal Process, Section 3.3 Board recall process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit?usp=sharing%20%5bdocs.google.com%5d>;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>; andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- The three guidelines are very similar, but there are some differences. For example, in the removal of a director there is a requirement for an interview. There also are specific voting thresholds for the removal of a director. AOB: -- From David McCauley: Suggest we form a group of volunteers where we ask someone other than the subject matter expert to review one of the guidelines documents.