From David McAuley:

From: McAuley, David
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 9:02 AM
To: 'gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org' <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team

Dear Heather and members and staff of the GNSO Drafting Team:

As luck would have it (of course), I was away with my family last Monday, April 1^st (no fooling) in Ireland when the ccNSO guidelines team I am a part of discussed the Special IFRs under Bylaw section 18.12.

So, I wrote to Katrina Sataki (ccNSO chair) and Bart Boswinkel (lead staff member for ccNSO) and asked for an update on the topic and here below is what Katrina said. (I will listen to the recording of the meeting but that may take a bit of time.)

Best wishes,

David

David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:06 AM
To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; 'Bart Boswinkel' <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team

Hi David,

I am sorry you could not join the recent GRC call as this was one of the issues we discussed. Maybe you could listen to the recording?

To sum it up, we had more questions than answers:

What is a “meaningful consultation”? Does it have to be face-to-face? What particular questions does it need to address? ccTLDs and gTLDs are the direct customers of IANA and as such they have issues that need to be resolved. It is clear that other SO/ACs cannot resolve those issues as they are not direct customers of IANA and, in some cases, they might not even understand the issues. Should we consult on the procedure and not the essence?
Who initiates the SIFR? The IFR is initiated by the Board. Should the SIFR follow the same pattern? But what if we failed to resolve the issue because of the Board? What if we need to act quickly (because too much time has already been wasted)?
Apparently the SIFR is the last resort. There is a certain procedure that needs to be followed to (at least) try to resolve the issue in question. The Bylaws mention Remedial Action Procedures – these are defined by the CSC, and IANA Probl;em Resolution Process – it refers to the contract which, in turn, refers to Remedial Action Procedures. Is this the same thing then?
Apparenlty, public comment is nota n obligation – we need to initiate it only if requested by GNSO and ccNSO.
There is a clear need to discuss this with the GNSO.

Not sure it helps J

Regards,

]{atrina

From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 10:14 PM
To: katrina@nic.lv; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Subject: question on Special IFRs from GNSO drafting team

Hi Katrina and Bart,

I am participating in a recently formed GNSO drafting team to document processes to follow in GNSO’s role as decisional participant in the Empowered Community.

This week we will be discussing the GNSO input process in the context of initiation of a special IFR on the IANA function. Bylaw section 18.12 covers such special IFRs.

Section 18.12 places a number of obligations on the ccNSO and GNSO prior to such a special IFR being authorized (see, e.g., section 18.12(a)(iii)) which requires each to consider the matters presented and together to have ‘meaningful consultation’ with other SOs and ACs).

We are about to consider how we might coordinate the process of consulting with ccNSO in this respect – including whether and how to formalize a consultation process and including whether consultative discussions might be informal but consultative decisions more formal.

As we have these discussions I am wondering if you have thoughts on the questions that I could relay back to the GNSO drafting team – here, FYI, is our drafting team wiki.

Meantime, best wishes to you both.

David

David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154