Dear DT Members,

Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 05 October.  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 recording.  The recording and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings.  The mapping document from Steve DelBianco is attached.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 1300 UTC

Action Items:

1. Staff will clarify whether 19.6 Election of Co-Chairs and Liaisons references the same process as for co-chairs as IFRT in 18.7.

2. Steve D will circulate another version of the report with minor changes.  Dropping last page.  No objection from Steve M.

3. DT members will continue to review the mapping document beginning with Section 22.8.

Review the mapping document and note any DT recommendation where DT members would like to argue for a decision threshold that differs from what is indicated in the document.

Article 4 -- 4.2 & 4.3:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M: Surprised in blue.  4.3 B talks about a supporting organization being a claiment -- GNSO on its own initiating reconsideration -- should be green.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D. 4.3 b -- If GNSO made a decision to be a claimant it would be a majority of each House.  What else?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Probably higher than that.  These should be separate.  GNSO as part of EC and other GNSO acting on its own.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: 4.2 and 4.3 b -- GNOS rep on EC approve a Reconsideration request -- majority of each House?  Or different level?  If GNSO itself decides to be a claimant for a reconsideration request -- what level of support?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Ed Morris: Majority of each House.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Steve M., supermajority?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Some type of supermajority.

Poll: How many for higher than majority of each House?  1 - Steve M.; 6 – majority of each House.

4.3b

Poll: 1 – Steve M. higher; 6 -- majority of each House.

4.3(j) -- IRP standing panel -- majority of each House

Poll: Steve M.: 1-higher; 6 - majority of each House.

4.6: Specific Reviews -- Chairs of ACs/SOs select a group of 21 review team members -- each GNSO constituency and SG can nominate and decision to approve 21 members would be presented to Council to approve. 

Agreed: 4.6a majority of each House consensus.

4.7 Community mediation

Agreed: Majority of each House.  No objections.

Article 6, section 6.1 -- GNSO representative on the EC.  GNSO Council has appointed an interim post -- Council Chair 

Poll: Majority or supermajority: 1 member -- Steve M; 6 – majority.

Discussion Notes:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Marika: Current way Bylaws are written the assumption is the Chair would take that role unless another was selected.  How would you deal with multiple candidates/nominees?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr: The Bylaws have referred to the GNSO Council Chair as the GNSO Chair.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Marika: It requires a notification to the ICANN Secretary.  Can that happen if there has been no selection?  Or does the DT need to make a clarification -- authorized to make that notification unless the GNSO decides to select another person.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Not sure we will get to that on this call.  First question is when we are nominating -- majority or supermajority. 

Poll: Supermajority or greater than simple majority?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Ed Morris: Simple majority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr: Good with simple majority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Darcy: Agree.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Farzaneh: Agree.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Might not get even simple majority for a nominee.  Not sure that we need to get into every contingency.

6.1 Composition and Organization of the EC – Agreed: majority of DT agreed that Council speaks for GNSO and simple majority of each House.

6.2 EC Powers – Agreed: Council speaks for GNSO.

6.3 EC Administration -- DT recommends that GNSO representative on EC acts through the majority of each House

Article 7: Board of Directors, Section 7.2 -- majority of each House -- in appointing replacement directors.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: 7.12 -- Entire Board is recalled.  Don't see how that could be simple majority.  Support a higher threshold.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Ed Morris: We will be under time pressure to appoint an interim member -- would agree with supermajority if not interim director.

Agreed: Simple majority for interim directors and follow already defined procedures for directors.

Article 11, Section 11.3: What action needs to happen here?

Discussion Notes:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Julie H: Need to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures voting threshold.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Marika: Question is whether you want to call out these voting thresholds separately that relate to the EC.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Could clarify that Council references the GNSO in the Bylaws.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: GNSO cannot amend the Bylaws by itself, nor the Council.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Staff would come back with amendments to procedures or Bylaws based on the DT recommendations on who and how.  DT will want to comment.  If in the Bylaws then the EC has a role in approving.  Better if Bylaws said that Council speaks for GNSO.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr: If it the consensus of the GNSO to move in that direction.  Language in the current Bylaws supports the Council carrying out the duties of the GNSO.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: The point about the Bylaws change is that the GNSO can't change the Bylaws by itself.  Don't agree with Amr that there if there is no direct prohibition then the Council can do it.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Ed Morris: It is a valid point, but not sure that this DT is the one to reconcile this, but maybe when we get to the Council -- may need to ask Legal if we need to amend the Bylaws.  Leave it for Council to decide.

Agreed: DT realizes that some recommendations will be reflected in amendments to the procedures and some in the Bylaws changes.   These would then go up for public comment.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->16.2<!--[endif]-->PTI Governance: Approved by the EC -- GNSO's rep.  Majority of each House.

Poll: Supermajority or majority?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Ed Morris: This is a fundamental power.  Would prefer a supermajority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Anyone else want to raise the threshold?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M. Supermajority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Farzi: Supermajority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr: Supermajority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Darcy: Supermajority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Wolf-Ulrich: Supermajority.

Agreed: Supermajority.

16.3 IANA Naming Functions Contract: EC approves changes to contractual terms.  Agreed: Majority of each House.

17.1 CSC -- escalate a failure -- EC authorizing instructions.  Agreed: Majority of each House.

Discussion Notes:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.:  ccNSO and GNSO may address matters escalated by the CSC, pursuant to their operating rules and procedures.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: You are right, not GNSO rep.  GNSO Council speaks for GNSO.  Majority of each House would decide.  Higher threshold?  None.

17.2 CSC Composition, appointment, term, and removal -- GNSO Liaison.  Agreed: Council to approve by majority of each House.  Current James Gannon.

17.3(b) GNSO Council would respond by a majority of each House.  Agreed: majority of each House.

17.3(c)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M says GNSO can request -- who is empowered to request the formation? 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: No role on the registries stakeholder group, but there is a role is for recommendation.

18 IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs).  Bylaws say supermajority.  DT doesn't have to make a recommendation for 18.2.   Same for 18.6.

18.7 Composition of IFR Review Teams - no role for Council each Constituency and Stakeholder Group would designate its own member.

Discussion Notes:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr -- Q: GNSO SGs need to collectively agree on a uniform process for the nomination and appointment process for IFRT co-chair.  A role for Council?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D. GNSO will have several representatives -- recommend that the representatives from the GNSO will appoint their co-chair.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Agree.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Amr: Ask for clarification -- GNSO SGs also appointed members to CWG-Accountability -- but GNSO appointed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Bylaws say co-chairs selected from among the GNSO representatives.  Don't see a need for Council to get involved.  Recommend that each GNSO SG designates its member and GNSO Review Team members will select their co-chair.

18.12 Special IFR – No action by the DT: required review Bylaws say supermajority approval for comment period request.

Article 19.4 – No action by the DT: Bylaws references supermajority.

Article 19.6 Election of co-chairs and liaisons

Discussion Notes:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D.: Suggest simple majority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Why not the same as co-chair of IFRT in 18.7. 

Action Item: Staff to clarify whether this section references the same process as for co-chairs as IFRT in 18.7.

Article 22 – Agreed (see DT Draft Report)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D. Pick up on the next call.  Reminder to complete the doodle poll.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve M.: Already covered 22.7.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Steve D. You are right.  Pick up at 22.8 on the next call.