In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section. Matthew On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report. This is on page 3: “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community." And this is on page 4: "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This could imply that Council is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters.” I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t? Thanks. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report. And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).