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+Depositor.... 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-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 4. 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm...> -- 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-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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.