Response from ICANN Legal Concerning Initiation of a Special IFR
Dear all, Per action item 1 below from the meeting on 10 July, please see the following response from Sam Eisner at ICANN Legal concerning whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR. It appears from this response that it is the votes of the ccNSO and GNSO to initiate the Special IFR (assuming the Bylaws requirements of 18.12(a) (i)-(iv) are met), that obligate the Board to make sure the Special IFR goes forward. While this appears to confirm the DT’s assumption, staff is interested in your thoughts concerning the response. Kind regards, Julie & Ariel ------------------------------------------------ From Samantha Eisner, ICANN Legal: The Special IFR can only be initiated once the requirements laid out at 18.12(a) (i)- (iv) have been satisfied. Among those requirements are supermajority support at the GNSO council and ccNSO Council levels, after consideration of the resolution of the PTI Performance Issue. In this case, it’s the completion of the votes that tells the Board it’s time for a Special IFR, instead of the running of a five-year calendar period that tells the Board it’s time for a Periodic IFR. If the requirements of 18.12(a) are met and the Special IFR is voted to be initiated, then 18.1 obligates the Board to make sure that the Special IFR goes forward and adheres to all other Bylaws requirements. With that, the Board’s oversight role would include making sure that the org is proceeding with calls to the community to compose the IFRT and supporting the appointing entities in their process, as well as providing all other appropriate support for the Special IFR to proceed. Hope this is helpful. Sam From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKw... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6Gh... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.
Dear Julie, Thanks so much for following up on this important question prior to our meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday. This confirms how I had interpreted the Bylaws (but one never knows! and if there's any possible misinterpretation, it's best to check!), and hopefully helps clarify things for the ccNSO. Best wishes, Heather On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:11 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Per action item 1 below from the meeting on 10 July, please see the following response from Sam Eisner at ICANN Legal concerning whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR. It appears from this response that it is the votes of the ccNSO and GNSO to initiate the Special IFR (assuming the Bylaws requirements of 18.12(a) (i)-(iv) are met), that obligate the Board to make sure the Special IFR goes forward. While this appears to confirm the DT’s assumption, staff is interested in your thoughts concerning the response.
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
------------------------------------------------
From Samantha Eisner, ICANN Legal:
The Special IFR can only be initiated once the requirements laid out at 18.12(a) (i)- (iv) have been satisfied. Among those requirements are supermajority support at the GNSO council and ccNSO Council levels, after consideration of the resolution of the PTI Performance Issue. In this case, it’s the completion of the votes that tells the Board it’s time for a Special IFR, instead of the running of a five-year calendar period that tells the Board it’s time for a Periodic IFR.
If the requirements of 18.12(a) are met and the Special IFR is voted to be initiated, then 18.1 obligates the Board to make sure that the Special IFR goes forward and adheres to all other Bylaws requirements. With that, the Board’s oversight role would include making sure that the org is proceeding with calls to the community to compose the IFRT and supporting the appointing entities in their process, as well as providing all other appropriate support for the Special IFR to proceed.
Hope this is helpful.
Sam
*From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM *To: *"gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. *Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript**.* The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729.
Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor....
Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Actions Items:*
1. *Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR*: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. *Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum*: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. *Preparation for 24 July Meeting*: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.)
*Notes:*
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.
2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKw... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
-- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations?
-- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches.
*ACTION ITEM:* *Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR.*
3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6Gh... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
-- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> .
-- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal.
Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July):
1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism:
a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”.
b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.”
1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration:
a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details.
b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July.
1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest.
*ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions.*
4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.
*ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. * _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Julie and Ariel, I agree with Heather – thank you for following up on this important question. Pragmatically, as I see it, if the ccNSO and GNSO vote by supermajority for an SIFR then it will happen, following on from those votes. But as I recall the inquiry here was purposefully specific – who actually ‘initiates’ the SIFR? (Unfortunately, the word ‘initiated’ in bylaw 18.12(a) (on Special IFRs) is not the word used elsewhere in important parts of Bylaw 18 (on IANA Naming Function Reviews)). On that question I agree with Samantha. The ccNSO and GNSO “approve” the SIFR – as per Bylaw 18.12(a)(iv) – and the Board then shall “cause … [an SIFR] to be carried out” – as per Bylaw 18.1. One reliable English-language dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines ‘initiate’ as: to cause or facilitate the beginning of - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initiate. So, it appears to me that the Board technically initiates an SIFR by causing the SIFR to be carried out. To me, this makes it very important that our procedure include an affirmative obligation for both Councils to (probably jointly) pass on to the Board the results of GNSO and ccNSO votes in this respect - the votes are not self-executing starts to an SIFR. Best wishes, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 5:12 PM To: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Response from ICANN Legal Concerning Initiation of a Special IFR Dear all, Per action item 1 below from the meeting on 10 July, please see the following response from Sam Eisner at ICANN Legal concerning whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR. It appears from this response that it is the votes of the ccNSO and GNSO to initiate the Special IFR (assuming the Bylaws requirements of 18.12(a) (i)-(iv) are met), that obligate the Board to make sure the Special IFR goes forward. While this appears to confirm the DT’s assumption, staff is interested in your thoughts concerning the response. Kind regards, Julie & Ariel ------------------------------------------------ From Samantha Eisner, ICANN Legal: The Special IFR can only be initiated once the requirements laid out at 18.12(a) (i)- (iv) have been satisfied. Among those requirements are supermajority support at the GNSO council and ccNSO Council levels, after consideration of the resolution of the PTI Performance Issue. In this case, it’s the completion of the votes that tells the Board it’s time for a Special IFR, instead of the running of a five-year calendar period that tells the Board it’s time for a Periodic IFR. If the requirements of 18.12(a) are met and the Special IFR is voted to be initiated, then 18.1 obligates the Board to make sure that the Special IFR goes forward and adheres to all other Bylaws requirements. With that, the Board’s oversight role would include making sure that the org is proceeding with calls to the community to compose the IFRT and supporting the appointing entities in their process, as well as providing all other appropriate support for the Special IFR to proceed. Hope this is helpful. Sam From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKw... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6Gh... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 3. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 4. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.
Dear David, Thank you for that extremely helpful and carefully nuanced reading of the Bylaws and ICANN Legal’s interpretation. We’ll make sure that this is included in the guidelines, if it is not explicitly called out: “that our procedure include an affirmative obligation for both Councils to (probably jointly) pass on to the Board the results of GNSO and ccNSO votes in this respect - the votes are not self-executing starts to an SIFR.” Thanks again and we hope that you have a nice weekend! Kind regards, Julie & Ariel From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 at 1:43 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Response from ICANN Legal Concerning Initiation of a Special IFR Dear Julie and Ariel, I agree with Heather – thank you for following up on this important question. Pragmatically, as I see it, if the ccNSO and GNSO vote by supermajority for an SIFR then it will happen, following on from those votes. But as I recall the inquiry here was purposefully specific – who actually ‘initiates’ the SIFR? (Unfortunately, the word ‘initiated’ in bylaw 18.12(a) (on Special IFRs) is not the word used elsewhere in important parts of Bylaw 18 (on IANA Naming Function Reviews)). On that question I agree with Samantha. The ccNSO and GNSO “approve” the SIFR – as per Bylaw 18.12(a)(iv) – and the Board then shall “cause … [an SIFR] to be carried out” – as per Bylaw 18.1. One reliable English-language dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines ‘initiate’ as: to cause or facilitate the beginning of - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initiate [merriam-webster.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.merriam-2Dwebster.c...>. So, it appears to me that the Board technically initiates an SIFR by causing the SIFR to be carried out. To me, this makes it very important that our procedure include an affirmative obligation for both Councils to (probably jointly) pass on to the Board the results of GNSO and ccNSO votes in this respect - the votes are not self-executing starts to an SIFR. Best wishes, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 5:12 PM To: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Response from ICANN Legal Concerning Initiation of a Special IFR Dear all, Per action item 1 below from the meeting on 10 July, please see the following response from Sam Eisner at ICANN Legal concerning whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR. It appears from this response that it is the votes of the ccNSO and GNSO to initiate the Special IFR (assuming the Bylaws requirements of 18.12(a) (i)-(iv) are met), that obligate the Board to make sure the Special IFR goes forward. While this appears to confirm the DT’s assumption, staff is interested in your thoughts concerning the response. Kind regards, Julie & Ariel ------------------------------------------------ From Samantha Eisner, ICANN Legal: The Special IFR can only be initiated once the requirements laid out at 18.12(a) (i)- (iv) have been satisfied. Among those requirements are supermajority support at the GNSO council and ccNSO Council levels, after consideration of the resolution of the PTI Performance Issue. In this case, it’s the completion of the votes that tells the Board it’s time for a Special IFR, instead of the running of a five-year calendar period that tells the Board it’s time for a Periodic IFR. If the requirements of 18.12(a) are met and the Special IFR is voted to be initiated, then 18.1 obligates the Board to make sure that the Special IFR goes forward and adheres to all other Bylaws requirements. With that, the Board’s oversight role would include making sure that the org is proceeding with calls to the community to compose the IFRT and supporting the appointing entities in their process, as well as providing all other appropriate support for the Special IFR to proceed. Hope this is helpful. Sam From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE – see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE – see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKw... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6Gh... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO’s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change “If such a consultation is scheduled” to “If such a consultation occurs”. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, “and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.” 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council’s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum.
participants (3)
-
Heather Forrest -
Julie Hedlund -
McAuley, David