Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel
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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
*3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
*3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
* 3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
1. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you, Heather, On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/transcript/transcript...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? Best regards, 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC 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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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.
Hello David, Thank you for raising this very good point! Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced? How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows? The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council. If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason: * 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 * 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, * 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 * 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 * 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2 Happy to hear thoughts from others. Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: "haforrestesq@gmail.com" <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Thank you, Heather, On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? Best regards, 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC 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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved. David - does Ariel's amendment suit? Best wishes to all, Heather On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello David,
Thank you for raising this very good point!
Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?
How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?
The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to *compile *any comments received, and post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership *may* work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.
If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:
- 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 - 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, - 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 - 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 - 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2
Happy to hear thoughts from others.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM *To: *"haforrestesq@gmail.com" <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Thank you, Heather,
On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently.
Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: *GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition*.
This section currently says this:
*Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. *
*The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki.*
While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable?
Best regards,
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 *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
*3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
*3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
* 3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
1. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this. My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter. Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves. So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me. Best wishes, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved. David - does Ariel's amendment suit? Best wishes to all, Heather On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Hello David, Thank you for raising this very good point! Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced? How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows? The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council. If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason: * 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 * 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, * 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 * 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 * 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2 Happy to hear thoughts from others. Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: "haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>" <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Thank you, Heather, On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC 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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Excellent, David--thanks very much for your speedy input. H Sent from my Xperia by Sony smartphone ---- McAuley, David wrote ----
Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this.
My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter.
Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves.
So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me.
Best wishes,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved.
David - does Ariel's amendment suit?
Best wishes to all,
Heather
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello David,
Thank you for raising this very good point!
Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?
How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?
The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.
If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:
* 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 * 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, * 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 * 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 * 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2
Happy to hear thoughts from others.
Best Regards,
Ariel
From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: "haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>" <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Thank you, Heather,
On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently.
Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition.
This section currently says this:
Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period.
The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki.
While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable?
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
3. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
I support Ariel’s response to solve the interesting concern raised by David. On 10/3/19, 7:33 AM, "Gnso-bylaws-dt on behalf of McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this. My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter. Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves. So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me. From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved. David - does Ariel's amendment suit? On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you for raising this very good point! Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced? How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows? The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council. If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason: * 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 * 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, * 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 * 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 * 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2 Happy to hear thoughts from others. Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: "haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>" <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Thank you, Heather, On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC 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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Hi all, my support, too. And thanks to David and Ariel. Cheers, Tanya On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:38, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
I support Ariel’s response to solve the interesting concern raised by David.
On 10/3/19, 7:33 AM, "Gnso-bylaws-dt on behalf of McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this.
My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter.
Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves.
So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me.
*From:* Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM
Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved.
David - does Ariel's amendment suit?
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you for raising this very good point!
Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?
How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?
The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to *compile *any comments received, and post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership *may* work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.
If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:
- 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 - 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, - 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 - 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 - 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2
Happy to hear thoughts from others.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM *To: *"haforrestesq@gmail.com" <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Thank you, Heather,
On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently.
Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: *GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition*.
This section currently says this:
*Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. *
*The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki.*
While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable?
Best regards,
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 *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
*3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
*3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
* 3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
1. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Do I understand it right that the complied info comes along with the raw comments? (may be separate place, but for sake of transparency it should be visible too) Maxim Alzoba On 8 Oct 2019, 20:43, at 20:43, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, my support, too. And thanks to David and Ariel. Cheers, Tanya
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:38, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
I support Ariel’s response to solve the interesting concern raised by David.
On 10/3/19, 7:33 AM, "Gnso-bylaws-dt on behalf of McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this.
My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter.
Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves.
So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me.
*From:* Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM
Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved.
David - does Ariel's amendment suit?
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you for raising this very good point!
Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?
How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?
The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to *compile *any comments received, and post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the *compilation of comments* to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership *may* work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.
If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:
- 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 - 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, - 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 - 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 - 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2
Happy to hear thoughts from others.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM *To: *"haforrestesq@gmail.com" <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Thank you, Heather,
On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>
and accept that others view this differently.
Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: *GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition*.
This section currently says this:
*Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. *
*The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki.*
While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable?
Best regards,
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 *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
*3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
*3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal):
*https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q...
[docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
* 3.3 (Board Recall):
*https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma...
[docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
1. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>)
and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>).
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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks David, Heather, Steve, and Tatiana for supporting the suggested language. Maxim – that’s correct. It is the compilation of raw comments without editing or summarizing. As noted in the guidelines, these raw comments will be published on the Council mailing list/website/wiki for transparency purpose. IF time permits / feasible, staff may work with Council leadership to provide a summary in addition to the compilation of raw comments. Best, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:10 PM To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Cc: "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Do I understand it right that the complied info comes along with the raw comments? (may be separate place, but for sake of transparency it should be visible too) Maxim Alzoba On 8 Oct 2019, at 20:43, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, my support, too. And thanks to David and Ariel. Cheers, Tanya On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:38, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: I support Ariel’s response to solve the interesting concern raised by David. On 10/3/19, 7:33 AM, "Gnso-bylaws-dt on behalf of McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this. My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter. Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves. So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me. From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved. David - does Ariel's amendment suit? On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you for raising this very good point! Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced? How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows? The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council. If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason: * 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2 * 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2, * 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2 * 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2 * 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2 Happy to hear thoughts from others. Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: "haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>" <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC Thank you, Heather, On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> and accept that others view this differently. Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition. This section currently says this: Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki. While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC 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 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines. Draft Proposed Agenda 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion: 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 1. AOB Kind regards, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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. ________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
All, see comments inserted. Looking forward for the discussion. Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.10.2019 um 05:35 schrieb Heather Forrest:
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.
WUK: agree with Julie and David
* 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."
WUK: agree
* 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.
WUK: in case the petition is submitted by somebody from the other house - or from elsewhere - could you imagine how enthusiastically the motion would be drafted? Shouldn't it be a task for the council leadership?
* 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.
WUK: agree
Best wishes to all as we near the finish line,
Heather
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
Draft Proposed Agenda
1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion:
*3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
*3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
* 3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
3. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie & Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org <mailto: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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (9)
-
Ariel Liang -
haforrestesq -
Heather Forrest
-
Julie Hedlund -
Maxim Alzoba -
McAuley, David -
Steve DelBianco -
Tatiana Tropina -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben