Dear DT colleagues,
We are scheduled to meet for one final time to discuss the 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 documents, and sign these off. As yet we have spent most of our time in 3.1, and with our supplemental call, I believe we resolved the issue of "standing" (so to speak) to make a petition to remove a board member. That means we need to cover all of the outstanding questions in 3.2. Ariel has already carried over into 3.3 (Board Recall) all of our edits developed in discussing 3.1. There appear to be no outstanding issues in 3.3; if you believe that there are outstanding issues requiring discussion in 3.3 in this week's call, please could you note this on the list prior to our call. If there are no concerns notified about 3.3, I propose to focus our time on 3.2, and specifically the outstanding queries.
To make the call as efficient as possible, I have listed below the outstanding questions lingering in 3.2:
3.2 SO/AC Director Removal:
- clause 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: 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.
- clause 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: 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."
- clause 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: 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.
- clause 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: 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.
Best wishes to all as we near the finish line,
Heather