Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 18 September 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117604965. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depositor.... Best Regards, Julie & Ariel Action Items: 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_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=> 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. Staff to send a Doodle Poll to schedule an extraordinary meeting for next week to discuss the issue of the timing in the submission of petitions. All DT members are encouraged to attend if possible. 2. DT members to finalize review of the documents and any comments/edits. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Heather Forrest has been nominated for the position of IPC President. 2. Continue 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...> Section 4.1, top of page 5: -- Revised language on who can submit the petition: suggested language from the meeting: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to: 1) a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency for transmission to the GNSO Council; or 2) the GNSO Council directly.” The DT put in the language of the possibility of both options. -- If a constituency drags its feet before submitting to Council, I still think we start the clock for Council when Council gets it. -- It’s possible that a constituency will decide NOT too forward to Council. They may just disagree. Then the individualizing can go direct to Council. -- Come back to this issue when we cover a similar section in 3.2. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, page 6: -- Redlined changes relating to invitations. Suggestion from Steve DelBianco: Delete the word “all” in “all invited parties”. We have to have all four parties, to leave as is. GNSO Corporate Secretary is not a crucial participant. 4.2.7, page 8: -- Previously we asked whether the Council had to give a rationale for its decision, but we realized that when the petition becomes a Supported Petition there has to be a rationale for why it’s support. So we need to record why the Council supported the petitioner. The same applies to a rejection action petition. -- Add “such rationale would be required were the petition is accepted by other EC members)”. 4.2.11, pages 10-11: -- Change from Heather – “no later than” – suggest we don’t need the language since the table assumes this. -- Day 29: Comment from David McCauley: Two concerns here. First, day 29 is the latest day this can be submitted – it might be required earlier, even much earlier as the operative language for submission in bylaw D.3.1(d)(i) is “…within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the support …” Second, the other decisional participant (the supporting one) also needs to provide such notice within the same time – do we want to mention that? -- Per my understanding of the Bylaws, any Decisional Participant that expresses support must provide a written notice no later than the 28th day after the Petition Date. That's the official deadline for the Petition Support Period as per Bylaws. I don't think the GNSO can ask the other Decisional Participants that they must make such decision earlier than Day 28, as the other Decisional Participants have the right to take their time to make such decision. Hence, I think the GNSO cannot expect to submit the Supported Petition earlier than Day 29. Regarding the Supporting Decisional Participants providing a notice on Day 28, I added some text to this effect in the table. 4.3.1, pages 11-12: Minor text change to “promptly” from “immediately.” 4.3.3, pages 11-12: -- Change to: “When sending requests for feedback, the GNSO Secretariat may also post the recording and transcript, if available from the Petitioning Decisional Participant, of the dialogue regarding the Nominating Committee Director Removal to the mailing lists of the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies.” 4.3.4, page 12: -- Keep the explicit list or use the shorthand? (“all invited parties”). 4.3.5, page 13: -- Spell out what is required for someone to support a petition – repeating the requirements from the Bylaws. 5.2.1, page 15: Re-ordering the paragraphs consistent with other guidelines. 5.3, page 16: Added language from the Bylaws: “If the GNSO Council has not reached a decision regarding the removal of such Director, the GNSO Council will be deemed to have abstained from the Supported Petition.” Motion Templates -- Pages 18 and 19: -- Noted discrepancy in the Bylaws in the use of the term “Petitioned” and “Petitioning”. The language is from the Bylaws; alert ICANN Org to the discrepancy. -- Open questions relating to where the petition comes from and how they get passed through. Hold for discussion on 3.2 guidelines. 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_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=> 3. Bylaws and Additional Proposed Steps, page 3: -- Changed to “and/or GNSO” in the second column to reflect the Bylaws. -- Eliminate the related comment. 4.1, page 4: -- Quote directly the relevant sections of the Bylaws. Who can submit: “Such an individual must submit his/her Petition meeting the requirements of 4.2.2 below to the GNSO Council directly. If the GNSO Council deems that the petition has met the requirements for consideration (see Section 4.2.2 of the Guidelines), the House that appointed the applicable Director holding Seat 13 or 14 shall submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council.” -- This is a difficult area. Like that there should be a well-publicized address for someone to write to. Bylaws say that an individual can submit a petition to a Decision Participant, but the Decision Participant can set the procedures for how to address the petition. The Bylaws are expecting a quick adjudication. The clock is ticking. To whomever the petition is submitted that starts the clock. -- Alternatively, the Bylaws could be saying that the clock starts when the Decision Participant receives the petition. Limited ability to come up with rules to tell a constituency how to handle petitions, but we can develop procedures for Council. -- Cannot force an SG/C to do a particular thing, we can require them to comply with the timeline/actions of the Council, they can’t delay or obfuscate the role of the Council in the Bylaws. -- When we get together with the SGs/Cs in Cancun, we say “here’s the stuff that you will have to do so that the Council can comply”. Highlight this, that if you receive a petition it has to be promptly passed on. -- Article 3, annex D: Says that an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant subject to the procedures of the Decisional Participant. This is a new right. ACTION: Staff will set up a doodle for a small group meeting.