Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
Dear All, Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm.... There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66. In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow. Thank you! Ariel
Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines. For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since. After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC. You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions. I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble. I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion. Very best wishes, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm....
There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by *COB Friday, 25 October*. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66.
In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow.
Thank you!
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.
Hello everyone, Huge thanks to Heather’s very thorough explanation of the back story! Please see the revised internal guideline for the GNSO with respect Section 18.12 Special IFR here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A05Mo8mvL4BxdX63M7zQKAyLQwwjcUe5cIW7cWrs... This revised guideline is quite different from the outdated one related to the GIP (archived here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SaBsH3s-1HQyyR2sczhplraNqGfKO5sBIVhHt3XG...>). As Heather noted, the GNSO Council no longer needs a GIP for considering the initiation of a Special IFR, but the GNSO Council still needs some guidance as to how to conduct the internal review of the outcome of the Remedial Action Procedure and IANA Problem Resolution Process, which is required in Section 18.12(a)(i)-(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws. After the internal review, the GNSO Council will need to provide the GNSO input as the outcome of this internal review to the Special IFR Coordination Team (SICT) (see Section 1.4 of the Joint Consultation Guidelines<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm...>). Therefore, this revised internal guideline is to provide additional details for this GNSO internal review process. While almost the entire document is new, the process itself should not be foreign to the Drafting Team. In essence, the guideline proposes the formation of a Small Group by the GNSO Council to 1) lead the internal review, 2) gather feedback from SGs/Cs, and 3) develop a statement of the proposed GNSO input (some elements of a GIP have been borrowed here); then the GNSO Council takes a vote on whether to accept the proposed GNSO input as the outcome of the internal review (a motion template has been provided). In particular, some specific sections that staff would like to seek your input are Section 4.3, Section 4.6, and Section 4.7: 1) the composition of the Small Group, 2) what happens if the Council does not accept the proposed GNSO input, 3) proposed timeline of activities. Please review and provide your input/comment directly on the Google Doc, if convenient. This is our last mile toward the finishing line and thank you all for your time & help! Best Regards, Ariel From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 11:26 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines. For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since. After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC. You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions. I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble. I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion. Very best wishes, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66. In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow. Thank you! 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.
Dear DT colleagues, A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue: 1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work. 2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal. 3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed. 4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week. 5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm. With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:
Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines.
For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since.
After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC.
You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions.
I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble.
I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion.
Very best wishes,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm....
There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by *COB Friday, 25 October*. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66.
In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow.
Thank you!
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.
Thanks Heather and team! No more issues from my side. A big support re the Saturday night bar approach! Safe travels to all Wolf-Ulrich Am 25.10.2019 um 09:31 schrieb Heather Forrest:
Dear DT colleagues,
A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue:
1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work.
2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal.
3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed.
4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week.
5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm.
With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote:
Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines.
For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since.
After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC.
You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions.
I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble.
I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion.
Very best wishes,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm....
There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by *_COB Friday, 25 October_*. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66.
In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow.
Thank you!
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.
Hello everyone, Per Heather’s email point 4, please find the slide deck that provides an overview of all the guidelines that the DT has developed. It includes graphics of the Empowered Community powers, high level procedure of each of the guideline, and some key points that differentiate them from one another. You are welcome to use this slide deck for your presentation/briefing about the Bylaws DT’s work at ICANN66, if applicable. Both PPT and PDF versions of the slide deck are attached. Thank you, Julie & Ariel From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:31 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR Dear DT colleagues, A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue: 1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work. 2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal. 3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed. 4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week. 5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm. With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines. For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since. After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC. You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions. I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble. I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion. Very best wishes, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66. In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow. Thank you! 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.
Thanks very much Julie and Ariel! This is very helpful. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.11.2019 um 17:49 schrieb Ariel Liang:
Hello everyone,
Per Heather’s email point 4, please find the slide deck that provides an overview of all the guidelines that the DT has developed. It includes graphics of the Empowered Community powers, high level procedure of each of the guideline, and some key points that differentiate them from one another.
You are welcome to use this slide deck for your presentation/briefing about the Bylaws DT’s work at ICANN66, if applicable. Both PPT and PDF versions of the slide deck are attached.
Thank you,
Julie & Ariel
*From: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:31 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
Dear DT colleagues,
A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue:
1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work.
2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal.
3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed.
4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week.
5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm.
With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote:
Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines.
For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since.
After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC.
You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions.
I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble.
I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion.
Very best wishes,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>.
There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by *_COB Friday, 25 October_*. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66.
In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow.
Thank you!
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 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.
I agree with Wolf-Ulrich, Many thanks for this helpful material. 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 Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 10:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR Thanks very much Julie and Ariel! This is very helpful. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.11.2019 um 17:49 schrieb Ariel Liang: Hello everyone, Per Heather’s email point 4, please find the slide deck that provides an overview of all the guidelines that the DT has developed. It includes graphics of the Empowered Community powers, high level procedure of each of the guideline, and some key points that differentiate them from one another. You are welcome to use this slide deck for your presentation/briefing about the Bylaws DT’s work at ICANN66, if applicable. Both PPT and PDF versions of the slide deck are attached. Thank you, Julie & Ariel From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:31 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org><mailto:ariel.liang@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: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR Dear DT colleagues, A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue: 1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work. 2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal. 3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed. 4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week. 5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm. With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines. For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since. After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC. You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions. I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble. I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion. Very best wishes, Heather On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66. In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow. Thank you! 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) 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.
Which Bar are you in? I‘m at the Lobby Bar. Wolf-Ulrich Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 02.11.2019 um 07:41 schrieb McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>:
I agree with Wolf-Ulrich,
Many thanks for this helpful material.
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 Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 10:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
Thanks very much Julie and Ariel! This is very helpful.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 01.11.2019 um 17:49 schrieb Ariel Liang: Hello everyone,
Per Heather’s email point 4, please find the slide deck that provides an overview of all the guidelines that the DT has developed. It includes graphics of the Empowered Community powers, high level procedure of each of the guideline, and some key points that differentiate them from one another.
You are welcome to use this slide deck for your presentation/briefing about the Bylaws DT’s work at ICANN66, if applicable. Both PPT and PDF versions of the slide deck are attached.
Thank you, Julie & Ariel
From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:31 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
Dear DT colleagues,
A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to mention document) fatigue:
1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12 Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work.
2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document. If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the Council list and discuss in Montreal.
3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed.
4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal. Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they land in our inboxes next week.
5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club - if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm.
With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote: Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint Consultation Guidelines.
For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since.
After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC.
You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12 isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12 provisions.
I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3 and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline, and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment, we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline, not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble.
I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold back for more time for a further review and discussion.
Very best wishes,
Heather
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote: Dear All,
Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPm... [docs.google.com].
There have been no substantive changes on this document, so please provide your final review by COB Friday, 25 October. The aim is to incorporate this document in the whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at ICANN66.
In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by events. More details will be provided when we circulate the revised guidelines tomorrow.
Thank you! 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]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). 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.
participants (5)
-
Ariel Liang -
Heather Forrest -
McAuley, David -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de