DT Action: Final Review 2.2/2.3 & Initial Review of 3.1/3.2/3.3
Dear Drafting Team, Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your final input/feedback. In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to: * 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period. The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input. Please use the links below to access the documents: * 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... * 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit> * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann www.icann.org
Thanks very much, Ariel, for circulating the updated version of 2.2/2.3 and our new suite of documents 3.1/3.2/3.3. By way of update on our old friend 18.12 and the Joint Consultation between GNSO and ccNSO, Ariel, Julie and I met for 35 minutes yesterday with Bart Boswinkel and Katrina Sataki, primarily to seek clarification on some of the edits that Bart and Katrina had proposed. We specifically had some questions on how to simplify the timeline table but still incorporate their edits, and to reach agreement on language such that the GNSO would not be in conflict with the GNSO Ops Procedures on how information gets distributed to the GNSO community (ie, via the email lists and GNSO website). I do believe that the call was extremely productive and efficient, and I think we all left the call thinking that we were on the same page. Ariel and I did quite a bit of work in the Joint Consultation document after the call to clarify the timeline further, but also mainly to bring the Joint Consultation Guideline to a more 'plain English' approach rather than lapse too far into legalese. The document is intended to be used by the GNSO and ccNSO Council, not a legal team, so we worked hard to make some non-substantive edits to make the document more fit for purpose. In light of the looming date for submitting our work package to the GNSO Council, I think we should anticipate that the 18.12 Joint Consultation Guideline won't be done by then. Bart proposed on yesterday's call that this might not be such a bad thing anyway, as it's a document that must be signed off by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, and this could potentially be best and most symbolically done at the joint meeting of those Councils in Montreal. If DT members agree, this is something that I'll be happy to raise with GNSO Council leadership. Best wishes and happy weekend to all, Heather On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Drafting Team,
Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your *final *input/feedback.
In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to:
- 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; - New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); - 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; - 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period.
The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input.
Please use the links below to access the documents:
- *2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... - *3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc...> - *3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... - *3.3 (Board Recall): * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma...>
Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call.
Best Regards,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
GNSO Policy Support Specialist
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 310 804 2761
Skype: ariel.liang.icann
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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.
Many thanks Heather, Julie, and Ariel for these efforts on the call and on drafting. A joint sign-off in Montreal sounds fine to me - perhaps with the 1812 overture playing in background ;-) Best regards David Sent via e-smoke signals On Aug 23, 2019, at 04:51, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks very much, Ariel, for circulating the updated version of 2.2/2.3 and our new suite of documents 3.1/3.2/3.3. By way of update on our old friend 18.12 and the Joint Consultation between GNSO and ccNSO, Ariel, Julie and I met for 35 minutes yesterday with Bart Boswinkel and Katrina Sataki, primarily to seek clarification on some of the edits that Bart and Katrina had proposed. We specifically had some questions on how to simplify the timeline table but still incorporate their edits, and to reach agreement on language such that the GNSO would not be in conflict with the GNSO Ops Procedures on how information gets distributed to the GNSO community (ie, via the email lists and GNSO website). I do believe that the call was extremely productive and efficient, and I think we all left the call thinking that we were on the same page. Ariel and I did quite a bit of work in the Joint Consultation document after the call to clarify the timeline further, but also mainly to bring the Joint Consultation Guideline to a more 'plain English' approach rather than lapse too far into legalese. The document is intended to be used by the GNSO and ccNSO Council, not a legal team, so we worked hard to make some non-substantive edits to make the document more fit for purpose. In light of the looming date for submitting our work package to the GNSO Council, I think we should anticipate that the 18.12 Joint Consultation Guideline won't be done by then. Bart proposed on yesterday's call that this might not be such a bad thing anyway, as it's a document that must be signed off by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, and this could potentially be best and most symbolically done at the joint meeting of those Councils in Montreal. If DT members agree, this is something that I'll be happy to raise with GNSO Council leadership. Best wishes and happy weekend to all, Heather On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Drafting Team, Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your final input/feedback. In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to: * 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period. The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input. Please use the links below to access the documents: * 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... * 3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit> * 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... * 3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit> Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 804 2761 Skype: ariel.liang.icann http://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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<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.
...any kind of victory sound may be acceptable, but we should be clear whom we defeated :-) Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 23.08.2019 um 18:46 schrieb McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt:
Many thanks Heather, Julie, and Ariel for these efforts on the call and on drafting.
A joint sign-off in Montreal sounds fine to me - perhaps with the 1812 overture playing in background ;-)
Best regards David
Sent via e-smoke signals
On Aug 23, 2019, at 04:51, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks very much, Ariel, for circulating the updated version of 2.2/2.3 and our new suite of documents 3.1/3.2/3.3.
By way of update on our old friend 18.12 and the Joint Consultation between GNSO and ccNSO, Ariel, Julie and I met for 35 minutes yesterday with Bart Boswinkel and Katrina Sataki, primarily to seek clarification on some of the edits that Bart and Katrina had proposed. We specifically had some questions on how to simplify the timeline table but still incorporate their edits, and to reach agreement on language such that the GNSO would not be in conflict with the GNSO Ops Procedures on how information gets distributed to the GNSO community (ie, via the email lists and GNSO website).
I do believe that the call was extremely productive and efficient, and I think we all left the call thinking that we were on the same page. Ariel and I did quite a bit of work in the Joint Consultation document after the call to clarify the timeline further, but also mainly to bring the Joint Consultation Guideline to a more 'plain English' approach rather than lapse too far into legalese. The document is intended to be used by the GNSO and ccNSO Council, not a legal team, so we worked hard to make some non-substantive edits to make the document more fit for purpose.
In light of the looming date for submitting our work package to the GNSO Council, I think we should anticipate that the 18.12 Joint Consultation Guideline won't be done by then. Bart proposed on yesterday's call that this might not be such a bad thing anyway, as it's a document that must be signed off by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, and this could potentially be best and most symbolically done at the joint meeting of those Councils in Montreal. If DT members agree, this is something that I'll be happy to raise with GNSO Council leadership.
Best wishes and happy weekend to all,
Heather
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Drafting Team,
Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your _final _input/feedback.
In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to:
* 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period.
The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input.
Please use the links below to access the documents:
* *2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... * *3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc...> * *3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... * *3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma...>
**
Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call.
Best Regards,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
GNSO Policy Support Specialist
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 310 804 2761
Skype: ariel.liang.icann
_______________________________________________ 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 <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.
Thanks Heather for all the improvements and the joint effort to make this document better acceptable for (council) readers. I fully agree to the approach to sign it by both councils at their combined meeting. However it still would need time to bring them up to the level where everybody can agree, meaning we have to communicate the document to the councils as early as possible. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 23.08.2019 um 10:51 schrieb Heather Forrest:
Thanks very much, Ariel, for circulating the updated version of 2.2/2.3 and our new suite of documents 3.1/3.2/3.3.
By way of update on our old friend 18.12 and the Joint Consultation between GNSO and ccNSO, Ariel, Julie and I met for 35 minutes yesterday with Bart Boswinkel and Katrina Sataki, primarily to seek clarification on some of the edits that Bart and Katrina had proposed. We specifically had some questions on how to simplify the timeline table but still incorporate their edits, and to reach agreement on language such that the GNSO would not be in conflict with the GNSO Ops Procedures on how information gets distributed to the GNSO community (ie, via the email lists and GNSO website).
I do believe that the call was extremely productive and efficient, and I think we all left the call thinking that we were on the same page. Ariel and I did quite a bit of work in the Joint Consultation document after the call to clarify the timeline further, but also mainly to bring the Joint Consultation Guideline to a more 'plain English' approach rather than lapse too far into legalese. The document is intended to be used by the GNSO and ccNSO Council, not a legal team, so we worked hard to make some non-substantive edits to make the document more fit for purpose.
In light of the looming date for submitting our work package to the GNSO Council, I think we should anticipate that the 18.12 Joint Consultation Guideline won't be done by then. Bart proposed on yesterday's call that this might not be such a bad thing anyway, as it's a document that must be signed off by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, and this could potentially be best and most symbolically done at the joint meeting of those Councils in Montreal. If DT members agree, this is something that I'll be happy to raise with GNSO Council leadership.
Best wishes and happy weekend to all,
Heather
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Drafting Team,
Following yesterday’s call, staff have worked with Heather to update the google doc for 2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action). Now all comments/edits have been resolved, except for the newly proposed text in Section 5.2, which is still in the redline form. Please be so kind to review the updated version and provide your _final _input/feedback.
In addition, please also begin reviewing the google docs for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (Board Director Removal / Board Recall). As mentioned during the call, these three documents follow the same/similar logic, structure, wording, timeline, and motion templates of 2.2/2.3, as they all deal with petitions. However, there are some substantive differences between these three documents, including but not limited to:
* 3.1/3.2 (Board Director Removal) requires a meeting among the affected parties during the Petition Period, but 3.3 (Board Recall) doesn’t require such meeting; * New voting thresholds have been created for 3.1/3.2/3.3 (as reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(j)), and 3.2 has two separate voting thresholds (one for the petition acceptance, one for the director removal); * 3.1 (NomCom Director Removal) requires support from at least one other Decisional Participant to proceed to the Community Forum, 3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal) does not require support from other Decisional Participants, and 3.3 (Board Recall) requires support from at least two other Decisional Participant; * 3.2 has a 7-day Comment Period following the Community Forum, while 3.1/3.3 don’t have such Comment Period.
The above list of differences is not exhaustive, and staff highlight them to help direct your focus when reviewing these documents due to their similarity. Staff also put comments on the Google Docs to highlight specific areas that we seek DT’s input.
Please use the links below to access the documents:
* *2.2/2.3 (Rejection Action): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z... * *3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWcc...> * *3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10Q... * *3.3 (Board Recall): *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbma...>
**
Thank you for your time and review! We look forward to further discussion during the next DT call.
Best Regards,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
GNSO Policy Support Specialist
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 310 804 2761
Skype: ariel.liang.icann
www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Ariel Liang -
Heather Forrest -
McAuley, David -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben