Thanks Steve. Just to correct a minor mistake in the title of the initial email to avoid confusion: The meeting is going to be today at 17.30 UTC and not 19.30 UTC. Also the link to adobe has changed. You should join via this link: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-bylaws/ On 29 September 2016 at 18:22, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:

Attached please find a doc and PDF of the marked-up draft v2 for discussion on today’s call.

I accepted grammatical corrections and left edits by Ed, Steve, and Amr for discussion.

I added a framework on page 7 for us to work towards our actual recommendation, per agenda item 4. This is the main focus of our call today.

—Steve

From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:50 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September 1930 UTC

Dear DT Members,

Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Thursday, 29 September at 1730 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached revised draft report for discussion as well as the notes from our last call below.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

*Proposed Agenda:*

1. Roll call/statements of interest

2. Review agenda

3. DT to discuss revised draft report as sent by co-chair, with edits from Ed Morris (attached)

4. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws

5. DT to hold a consensus call on the revised draft report

6. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council

*GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC*

*1. Statements of Interest*

*Action Item:* Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so. Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability.

*2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds*

*Action Items:*

1. Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the number (84).

2. Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss.

*Discussion Notes:*

*Who** should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies? *

· Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17 instances that were identified, not for other instances.

· Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations.

· Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC instances and others.

· Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not limited to, the GNSO Council.

· Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the Council does manage.

· Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC.

· Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary.

· Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph.

· Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17 instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended."

· Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it?

· Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO.

*Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC?*

“Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell

“No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz

Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree.

*NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed*:

· Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles. There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have done, such as the GNSO Review WG.

· Ed Morris: Agree with Amr.

· Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues.

· Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes.

*How** should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house?*

· Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote.

· Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing with other Council. Section 11.3.

· David Maher: I agree with that.

· Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member.

· Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House. Doesn't include votes for the NCA.

· David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme.

· Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no".

· Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no".

· Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme.

· Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines.

· Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question.

· Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support.

· Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can.

· Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an interesting and important option.

· Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now.

· Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time.

· Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no".

*Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO*

· Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree.

· Steve D.: Move into the second row.

· Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low.

· Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests.

· Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about?

· Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others.

· Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second row is instruction.

· Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority.

· Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority.

· Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M.

*3. Timing of Final Meeting*

*Action Item:* Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28th and Thursday the 29th. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29th so this time slot will be avoided.

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

-- Farzaneh