Hi Steve

Some suggested edits and text shifting in the attached.

I am a little concerned as to the implications of this comment:

Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure.

Thanks, Steve.  I’ve made your requested changes in the attached “Map”.  

Also attached is the revised Final Report by our DT.  Note that the Background and Recommendations are on page 1.   On page 2 we have the “Evolution of these recommendations, including Drafting Team deliberations”.   I removed names of DT members in that section.

I’ll be traveling over the next 4 hours and will look for DT member reactions/edits by 12 UTC on Tuesday 11-Oct.

—Steve

From: Steve Metalitz <met@msk.com>
Date: Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:54 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team - 10 October 2016

Please correct spelling of “excerpts” on page 1, and of “Recommendation” on the far right column. 

 

In only three instances, two of them dealing with Section 6.1, the recommendations column employs the term “consensus.”  In one of these instances, 3 of the 9 DT members oppose what is described as the “consensus” view (GNSO Council speaks for GNSO in all cases).   In the other (support required to approve GNSO representative on EC), I believe IPC was the only constituency to oppose the view that a majority of each House is sufficient.  In the third instance (section 16.1), I believe the support for the supermajority requirement on amending PTI articles of incorporation was unanimous.  It is confusing to use the word “consensus” to describe three different levels of support, especially when none of the other recommendations use the word.  So I suggest that “consensus” be dropped from the recommendations column.   

 

Steve Metalitz

 

Steven J. Metalitz |Partner, through his professional corporation

T: 202.355.7902 |met@msk.com

Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP|www.msk.com

1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

 

From: gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:33 PM
To: Yesim Nazlar; gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team - 10 October 2016

 

Thanks, all.   Attached is the final table mapping.   To help our GNSO colleagues print this on Letter/A4 paper, I moved staff’s “Additional Comments” into the previous column.   This allowed us to reduce the doc to 29 pages. 

 

Please LMK quickly if you have any corrections to this table.

 

Working on the revised report now…

 

--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987