Dear DT Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings. Please also note the wiki workspace at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday, 07 September 2016 Actions/Discussion Notes DT to continue review of table and discussion of possible approaches to the work: Consider direct decisions by GNSO member groups, instead of Council: · For Council, propose voting rules to approve nominations to PTI. CSC, Review Teams, Empowered Community, etc. · For Council, propose voting rules to approve decisions/actions related to the Empowered Community Discussion Notes: · Out of scope to change current Council voting rules, even for those decisions outside PDPs. · Ed Morris: o Based on Council discussions develop a unified appointment structure (all appointments -- not just related to the transition Bylaws); assume it will go through Council. Avoid different procedures for each appointment. o Consider the role of the NCA in appointments -- intended to be involved? · Steve DelBianco: Not out of scope to make recommendations for allocating authority not allocated to the Council in the Bylaws. Decision making methods for new opportunities, but not changing existing decision making; but if we come up with new methods we could consider applying them to existing appointment decisions. Straw poll on whether the Council should be the decision maker for the GNSO: · David Maher: Yes: only the Council has the power to vote. Use the current voting thresholds or new appointments/decisions; · Darcy Southwell: Yes: Should be the Council. Concern about SGs using powers against each other. · Steve Metalitz: No: The best solution is to figure out which of these new powers would be exercised by a group that is not the Council. The leadership of the constituencies and SGs should provide the basis for the alternative mechanism (if we don't use the council). · Ed Morris: Yes: Should be Council, but agree it doesn't have to be. If we go to another system we need to deal with the NCA, or say it doesn't have a role? · Amr Elsadr: Yes: Should be the Council, but agree it doesn't have to be. If we recommend using a different decision making body it should be justified. · Steve Metalitz: Role of NCA is to break ties in each house. They are not accountable to anyone in the GNSO. · Amr Elsadr: Notes that he assumes NomCom has other consideration other than just breaking ties. · Farzaneh Badii: Yes: Should be the Council. · Ed Morris: NCAs provide more than breaking a tie -- have a view of what is good for the entire GNSO. · Steve DelBianco.: If we use a majority house rule without the NCAs we will have ties. · Amr Elsadr: If we are using the Council to vote we could come up with new voting thresholds (not necessarily majority of each house). · Steve Metalitz: There are new roles; no need for a presumption of the Council as a decision-maker or the default thresholds. The problem to solve is that the Council was selected to manage the PDP, but there are different (non-PDP) roles. · Steve DelBianco: Look at two situations: 1) appointments to PTI, CSC, EC and 2) EC decision-making. · Ed Morris: Add Inspection / Investigation rights as a third situation as they are not part of the EC and have some special characteristics. Scenario 1: Assuming GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO as decision-maker, but without assuming current voting thresholds. 1. Appointments to PTI, CSC, EC -- Liaisons Option 1: Majority of Council votes (18 votes not counting the NCA, 20 if included) – Straw Poll: · David Maher: Should be majority of each house. · Ed Morris: Should be majority of each house. · Darcy Southwell: Should be majority of each house. · Steve DelBianco: Could give a weight to CPH. · Amr Elsadr: Should be a larger consensus beyond simple majority of Councilors, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to use the existing voting thresholds. Two-thirds of Council could work. · David Maher: Retain each house rule but a greater majority could work. Simple majority of Councilors could allow non-contracted parties to overwhelm contracted parties (fairness). · Ed Morris: This is a non-starter since it not likely to be approved by Council (particularly CPH).