Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 02 October 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=117609432. 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: 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition and related 4.2.3: Change 4.2.3 to reflect that the Council leadership looks at the petition to see if it meets the requirements, the leadership can alert the petitioner to gaps, the petitioner has a reasonable amount of time to resubmit, and if there is no correct and complete petition then the process is terminated. 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Resolve the comment. 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Add “The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council. The entire GNSO Council will participate in the vote.” 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: Ask Mary Wong to check with her Team to make sure we are compliant (given the 7-day comment period from the Bylaws). 3.3 Board Recall: David will suggest some language/approach on the list. Next Steps for Reviewing all Guidelines: Heather and staff will suggest an approach. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Tatiana Tropina moved to the Hague and started a new position with the government. 2. AOB: a. Meeting with GRC on 21 October at 12:00 UTC – moving forward on joint consultation guidelines on 18.12 b. Dry Run of Approval Action – schedule a dry run for ICANN66. 3. Continue Discussion: 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal: 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Suppose a petition is made, and it doesn't meet the requirements (these, as set out in 4.2.2, are pretty basic). Can another, new application be immediately submitted? Any limit on the timing between the old and new application? I personally am not convinced that this is a major issue that needs addressing, given how basic the requirements of 4.2.2 are. Note the related comment in 4.2.3 (ie, if GNSO Council leadership finds that the petition doesn't meet requirements, can applicant immediately resubmit?) Julie and David agree that immediate submission isn't appropriate. Again, I'm not convinced it's a major problem, unless we're thinking we are going to have vexatious filings. Discussion: -- If you haven’t submitted a petition properly the first time, probably don’t want to encourage a resubmission. Should there be a time limitation? What if there are new circumstances? What about fixing errors? -- 4.2.3 – Council Leadership reviews for procedural check, not substantive (which happens later). Admin review allows more wiggle room. -- GNSO community feedback, especially from the House that appointed the Director, can inform the decision by the Council in terms of the substance of the petition? -- And btw, the ‘rationale’ part for the petition is not required by the bylaws. -- Could give Council leadership the authority to communicate with the petitioner to fill in anything missing. ACTION: 4.2.3 Change to reflect that the Council leadership looks at the petition to see if it meets the requirements, the leadership can alert the petitioner to gaps, the petitioner has a reasonable amount of time to resubmit, and if there is no correct and complete petition then the process is terminated. 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Should both Houses be invited to give feedback on the one House's director? Given that the feedback is not dispositive of the outcome, but merely to inform a decision by Council, I personally am of the view that feedback from the "other" House shouldn't be prevented. I believe the wording here ("especially for those that belong in the applicable GNSO House that appointed the affected Director") make clear that the emphasis is on affected House, and is appropriate, but no need to go further to restrict the other House from "provid[ing] feedback, opinions, or comments on the merits of the Petition." Discussion: Agreed. ACTION: Resolve the comment. 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: From Heather: Since the voting requirement is at least 3/4 of the Councilors from the GNSO House that appointed the affected Director, does the entire Council need to meet for this vote? I believe that we should not set a precedent of only some Councillors meeting. The GNSO Operating Procedures make clear that we need quorum for a meeting to be held, and that's both Houses. So yes, I believe that the entire Council (both Houses) should meet. I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council.") is excellent and makes good sense. Discussion: -- Concern about accountability – whether to let the other house vote, or just participate in a discussion? -- Is there any connection between this vote and the vote at the end (approval of the petition) for a supermajority vote? -- Having the full Council meet to vote provides a fuller record. -- No matter how the other house votes, if the affected house doesn’t get 3/4 of the votes, the petition won’t go forward. -- Question: In case the petition is submitted by somebody from the other house - or from elsewhere - could you imagine how enthusiastically the motion would be drafted? Shouldn't it be a task for the council leadership? -- Note, any individual may submit a petition for consideration and if the Council deems that it meets the requirements, the House that appointed the director is expected to submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council and to include the information as required per the ICANN Bylaws. -- But the affected House is the party that put the Director there, so they should remove. ACTION: Add “The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council. The entire GNSO Council will participate in the vote.” 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: From Heather: I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("All GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are free to participate in this Comment Period in accordance with their own internal procedures and Bylaws.") work very well to specify what goes on in the Community Forum. ACTION: Ask Mary Wong to check with her Team to make sure we are compliant (given the 7-day comment period from the Bylaws). 3.3 Board Recall: From David McCauley: On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? ACTION: David will suggest some language/approach on the list.