Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 September. These high-level notes are designed to help DT members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 1730 UTC 1. Statements of Interest Action Item: Staff will check to see which members are missing SOIs and remind them to get them completed. 2. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws Decisional categories: 1. Nominations for GNSO representatives 2. Decisions made by GNSO to initiate or respond to EC 3. Decisions by GNSO on its own Action Items: 1. Staff will take the three decisional methods and array them against the instances in the Bylaws (mapping) -- functional recommendation. 2. Steve DelBianco will produce a revision based on the discussion. 3. Steve DelBianco will update the GNSO Council at its meeting on 29 September. DT has indicated that it would like more time – two weeks – to go into more detail on nominations and decision types made by the GNSO to initiate/respond to EC. Amr Elsadr: Clarification -- thought we were talking about last week was same threshold as for issue reports -- majority of one house -- for document inspection. Amr, Ed, David Maher -- decisions made by GNSO on its own to request document inspection: 1/4 of each house or simple majority of one house. 22.7(a) and (e): Any SG or C could make a request for document inspection -- wouldn't take an act of Council Ed Morris: Agreed. Saves time for the Councilors -- 22.7, page 118 -- references Decisional Participant. If that is Council then SG or C could request the Council Chair to do a document inspection request, but not a vote of Council, but keep in the option of 1/4 of each house or simple majority if the Council does it. Steve Metalitz: Support the first of the options, but not the second one. Don't support voting by house in the Council. Marika Koning re: NCAs: Couldn't do a document request if coming from SGs and Cs, but could vote if 1/4 of each house/simple majority. GNSO includes NCAs per the Bylaws. Mary Wong: Does this make the Council a mere conduit? Steve DelBianco: Yes if SG/C request, but not if the request comes from Council. Q: Any SG/C can exercise a document request with understanding that Council Chair would relay that to the DP? Vote: Yes: Amr, Darcy, David, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve M., Wolf-Ulrich, Steve D. Q: For Council to initiate a request: 1/4 of each house or simple majority of 1 house (Issue Report)? Ed Morris: If the NCAs are going to be participating it would be good if they had an avenue to request for Council to request document inspection. Also, if issues come up quickly -- allow more of a rapid response. Steve Metalitz: Can't support because IPC doesn't think Council should exercise these new powers. Vote: Yes: Amr, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve D., Darcy, David Abstain: Steve M.: IPC does not support council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. Wolf-Ulrich: Abstain because there are ongoing discussions within the ISPCP whether the council should exercise the EC power at all. Q: Decisions made by GNSO to initiate or respond to EC petitions, instruct GNSO EC Rep., initiate investigations (22.8) -- GNSO Supermajority (2/3 of each House or majority of other House) Amr: Desirable to achieve a high threshold, but haven't resolved the issue of NCAs. Might have to abstain. Steve D.: NCAs are part of the Council so not an issue here. Consensus policy if comes out of supermajority (staff confirm). Amr: It appears we are working on the assumption that Council will be the decision maker -- so would prefer a high threshold: supermajority. Marika: Supermajority is required for a consensus policy, but not everything that is adopted by supermajority is a consensus policy. Steve M.: Other things that aren't policy require supermajority. Worth considering if there is a consensus threshold, but don't know if that means GNSO Supermajority. Steve D.: Need to use existing thresholds as "consensus" doesn't have a definition. Using "consensus" as linked to in House voting. Minority report could come up with a different definition of consensus of SGs and Cs. Ed Morris: Can support the supermajority threshold if it gets us closer to a consensus decision. These powers will be exercised along with a lot of groups. Could be good to have a lower threshold -- such as simple majority -- for some things David Maher: I support supermajority. Darcy Southwell: Support single threshold. Wolf-Ulrich: Abstaining, but if there are any voting thresholds. Consensus is outlined in WG Guidelines. Need clear thresholds. Marika: At Council level there is no definition of consensus. But in the contracts consensus of the Council needs to be achieved and in practice that is supermajority. WG Guidelines: most agree and a small minority does not agree. Steve M.: The issue about maybe not everything should have the same voting threshold -- should not feel constrained to apply the same to all. Decising consensus policy just by voting. Steve D: Could indicate that we would like more time and go through each decision (in the staff table). Is there sufficient support on the DT that the threshold is simple majority or supermajority -- but examine each decision if we have more time. Q: Simple majority threshold? Vote: Yes, Amr, Ed, Farzi, Matthew, Steve D No: David Q: Supermajority threshold? Vote: Yes: Darcy and David Abstain: Wolf-Ulrich and Steve M. Amr: Leaning more towards a lower threshold and support simple majority of each house. Marika Konings: Maybe you could note on this one that the decisions would need to be reviewed in more detail but it will likely be either supermajority or simple majority, depending on the 'severity' of the decision? Q: Nominations -- who will represent the GNSO? Marika Konings: the DT is also expected to develop/propose the process for the nomination process as well as decision ('The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws"). But that could be part of the implementation, not necessarily the implementation plan. Steve D.: CSC rep was already selected. Steve Metalitz: The appointment of liaison to CSC was with the specifc notation from at least one constituency (IPC) that our vote was not meant to imply support for Council as the entity to make that appointment. Thanks to staff for reflecting this in the record of this meeting. Ed Morris: Okay with simple majority. Don't want a supermajority -- 50 or 60 percent. Wolf-Ulrich: Depends on the importance of the decision. For review teams in the past this was done through SGs and Cs that then the Council decided in a majority. Steve M.: One size does not fit all in "who" or "what" decisions. Steve D.: Given more time might separate out types of nominations and coming up with a process. Farzaneh: These are different so I don't think we can go with one voting threshold. Amr: Agree with Farzi. Steve D.: Would like to map this to the decisions and might have a higher threshold. Q: Simple majority? Vote: Yes: Darcy, David, Ed, Steve D. No: Amr, Farzi, Matt Q: Supermajority? VOTE: No support Steve D.: No recommendation. Need time to look at each type of nomination individually as well as to come up with a process. Edits in pages 1-6 then Steve Ms edits Steve M.: Page 3 -- 6 people wanted Council and 3 did not. A: Council does it B: SGs/Cs do it. Steve D: Didn't preserve what to do if it was not in Council. Steve M could draft an expansive minority report on SGs/Cs doing it. Steve M: Then I think you have to change the sentence and take out the reference to SGs and Cs. David M.: Belongs in a minority report. (+1 Ed and Farzi). Out of scope. Steve M.: Think that responds to what is in C. Steve D.: There is some in B and C. Amr: Tend to believe all viewpoints should be shared, including conflicting opinions. Sometimes those are minority report. Sometimes there are part of the report (Thick WHOIS). Language seems a bit hostile to the Council doing this work. Re: Steve's recommendation - could be reworded or may need to be in a minority statement. What about the recommendation to do work -- either this DT or another group. Don't see the harm in having this report distributed to SGs and C, but the wording needs to be changed. Steve D.: Statement could be neutralized. Ed: Opposed. Should be a minority report. Darcy: Minority report. Matthew: B & C to minority report. Farzi: Minority report. Wolf-Ulrich: Support having it in the report. Amr: Depends on the text. 3. Next steps? Steve D. will relay to Council where we got to and request another two weeks.