Thanks Steve for pointing out to the procedure. But even if we have to explain the procedure, we need to do it in a way that is not biased. I am concerned that there is resistance to carry out the edits that Matt did. Those edits can result in a more impartial report. Can we create a balance like that? On 11 Oct 2016 10:15 p.m., "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: Thanks, Farzi. I just sent a reply to Ed’s email. As to your suggestion to drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). Per your suggestion, we moved the Evolution discussion to the end of our report. But as long as the above guidelines are controlling our work, we cannot simply drop that material from the report. Best, Steve From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" < gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Hi Steve,

I regret that I do not agree with sending his report to Council this evening as proposed. Substantive matters relating to the report that arguably may be supported by a majority of group members are being discarded without adequate discussion, and a travelogue has been produced that features arguments proposed by a small minority of members (1/3 at best) rather than that proposed by the large majority (2/3) of members. As to the later, please note the following word totals:

Who section:

Portions supporting majority positions: 203 words (29%) Portions supporting minority positions: 493 words (71%)

How section:

Portions supporting majority positions: 122 words (34%) Portions supporting minority positions: 239 words (66%)

Cumulative:

Portions supporting majority positions: 732 words (69%) Portions supporting minority positions: 325 words (31%)

The Chair has produced a report that best represents a minority report that acknowledges the majority position. This is compounded by presenting in the document a large chart, introduced by the Chair, that was an inconsequential part of discussions, receiving the support of only 2 drafting team members.

I understand that the nature of discussions my not result in equitable volume in a travelogue. That is why we have transcripts and recordings: so interested parties can take a look at the nature of discussions. That is NOT the purpose of a report that is supposed to report the findings of a working group to a commissioning body.

David Maher’s position, represented nowhere in this report, during much of the discussion consisted of few words: “out of scope”. A true and accurate travelogue would have represented this view in parts of our discussion.

As to a few specifics:

1. Any references to the views of individual constituencies and stakeholder groups must be removed.

No member of this drafting team was appointed by a constituency or stakeholder group. We had a very long and somewhat contentious discussion on Council about the representation of this drafting team. Each one of us was appointed by an individual councilor with Council having the opportunity, which it did not use, to alter the composition of this Team to reflect the composition of the GNSO. Each member of this drafting team can act in accordance to his or her own wishes. As DT members were neither appointed nor nominated by their Constituency or Stakeholder group their views should be ascribed to them personally rather than to any group they may wish to be a part of. They simply were not appointed to this group in a representative capacity.

2. This paragraph is simply wrong:

‘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. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to discussion and recommendations for voting thresholds by which GNSO Council should approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.’

I refer to the word abstain, which in GNSO Operating Procedures §4.5 refers to instances where a Councilor does not vote on a particular matter or Motion before Council. The simple dictionary definition of abstain (Webster) consists of two definitional possibilities:

1. to choose not to do or have something, or 2.to choose not to vote

The three DT members referenced did not abstain on matters before this Drafting Team. They voted on where to locate the powers we were charged to examine should be exercised and lost. They then participated fully in all discussions, including voting on all threshold issues. That is not abstention: that is full participation. That their full participation does not indicate a reversal of their views on the previous vote which they lost is quite obvious. One does not flow from the other. Nevertheless, I would not be opposed to a small statement indicating same.

Let’s give Council what it asked for: an implementation plan. Towards that end:

1. I support sending the Council our recommendations stripped of the discussion. Recorded levels of support of every option, including all thresholds in which votes were taken, should be indicated.

2. Parties should be invited to submit minority or concurring reports, as indicated, to Council with the dicta currently contained in the proposed report and anything else they may wish to include for Council’s consideration. The current report is confusing for he uninitiated and reads more as a minority report acknowledging the majority position rather than as an accurate report of our implementation recommendations. That’s just not acceptable given our charge.

I should also note that the response deadline for approval of this report is inadequate. This, in effect, is a consensus call and we simply have not had enough time to hear from all of our DT members, many of whom are not located in North America and have not had a chance to view the final proposed document.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

------------------------------ *From*: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM *To*: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Cc*: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject*: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Have heard replies from Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, and Steve Metalitz so far, so let’s allow another hour and a half for others.

Unless there are significant objections, we’ll send our reports to Council today at 20 UTC.

If DT members have minor edits we can forward those to Council at any time.

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" < gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these docs.

Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs:

Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. (thank you!)

As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director. I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column:

4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these sections:

17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i).

Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision.

While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT will understand what our recommendations are all about. That background takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1.

I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion. Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and rejected).

Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7.

Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the recommendations, in my view.

My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday.

So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today.

Thanks again for your serious attention to this project.

—Steve

_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt