I have prepared responses that are currently being reviewed by my constituency.  I plan to circulate them to you tomorrow. 

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation

T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 5:41 AM
To: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review

Steve and all,

some short answers/comments:

IN 1: yes

IN 5: yes

IN 15: yes, it should be documented. But Board member selection is done on house level, not SG.

IN 37: Is this drafting team the right body to address this (I mean from its composition point of view)? Or shouldn't these procedural items been elaborated by the GNSO RT which took over similar tasks from the SCI? Who's the addressee of a petition in this context? A petition in principle could be filed from anyone within the GNSO community. Criteria should be developed with respect to the specific character of a petition in order to avoid that it just circumvents the GNSO's working process.

IN 44-46: Maybe a kind of "PDP" (Petition Development Process): Raising an issue, preleminary evaluation by (legal?) staff, council decision...

IN 45 (3/4 threshold): I tend to leave this decision with the body which appointed the board member (house). On the other hand each board member is accountable to the entire (SO?) community. This should be taken into consideration as well.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 11.03.2017 um 17:07 schrieb Steve DelBianco:

Thanks, Marika. 

When we completed our DT report late last year, we did promise to stay engaged and answer questions like these. 

So our first step is for each of us to read the draft and think about how to answer the 8 “Questions Identified” in column B, pages 1-4 of our attached doc. 

If we can each draft some rough answers to your questions, that would be a great setup for the meeting.

From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM
To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] For your review - Staff Report Bylaws & GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revisions & Legal Review

Dear Bylaws Drafting Team,

As you will recall, on 1 December 2016, the GNSO Council directed ‘ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council’. In the analysis of the DT recommendations, staff took a minimalist approach by focusing on the minimum changes needed to implement the DT recommendations.

However, in undertaking this work, staff did identify a number of questions and made a number of assumptions that it is requesting the DTs input on before this document and the revised ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures are published for public comment. You will find these questions and assumptions outlined in the attached document (in pdf and word version). To facilitate your review, the main questions have been flagged in the table contained in the executive summary.

We realise that there may be little time for you to review this document ahead of ICANN58 but we hope you are available to join us for the session that has been scheduled on Wednesday 15 March from 17.00 – 18.30 local time (see http://sched.co/9nqV for further details). This session is intended to walk you through our questions and assumptions as well as answer any questions you may have. The DT can also discuss how to proceed following ICANN58 to develop its input on these questions and assumptions which will then allow staff to finalise the documents for publication for public comment.

We look forward to receiving your feedback.

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@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. 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt

-- 
 
Am Steinringer Berg 19
53639 Königswinter
Tel: 02244 873999
Fax: 02244 873955
Mob: 0151 1452 5867