April 2016 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Notes/Actions: SCI Meeting 21 April 2016
by Sara Bockey May 4, 2016

May 4, 2016

Hi All, I was looking over notes/emails regarding Sub Team B and have a question. I seem to recall some discussions re voting/eligibility/election timing maybe a month or two ago, but did we land on a conclusion? Or perhaps we still have plans to discuss further? If anyone recalls and doesn’t mind refreshing my memory, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sara From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:30 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Notes/Actions: SCI Meeting 21 April 2016 Dear SCI members, Please see below the notes/actions captured from the SCI meeting held on 21 April. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Staff will separately send a notice for the extension on the Consensus Call as requested below. The GNSO Secretariat also will send a notice for a call in two weeks on Thursday, 05 May at the usual time of 1800 UTC. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions from 21 April SCI Meeting: 1. Process Relating to Motions & Amendments Discussion: There was a request from Amr Elsadr to extend the deadline of the Consensus Call through Monday, 25 April. There were no objections to this request. Staff suggested that both these revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and those that may result from the Chair/Vice Chair discussion could be combined in one Public Comment period. There were no objections to the suggestion. ACTION ITEM: Staff will resend the consensus call with the extended deadline. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections: ISSUE 2: Scenarios relating to the gap to be addressed when the Vice Chairs' terms end at the same time as that of the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected by that time. Discussion: Proposal from IPC — even where a Vice Chair is continuing in his/her term, the relevant House should have the ability to appoint a different Interim Vice Chair that is otherwise eligible. The comment was that this could be an unnecessary complication. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Anne Aikman-Scalese will bring the comment concerning the IPC proposal back to the IPC for consideration, and Amr Elsadr will bring the proposal and comment back to the NCUC for consideration. 2. The SCI members should review the final proposed language below for each scenario. SCENARIO 1: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but both Vice Chairs are continuing on the Council. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where no Chair is conclusively elected, the two Vice Chairs shall jointly oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a new Chair is elected.” SCENARIO 2: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but one Vice Chair is continuing on the Council, while the other Vice Chair’s term on the Council is ending. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where one of Vice-Chair's terms on the Council ends at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, the House with a vacant Vice-Chair position shall designate an Interim Vice Chair from within this House to join the continuing Vice Chair to oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business. The deadline for the vacant House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected." SCENARIO 3: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected in the first round, and neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where both Vice-Chairs’ terms on the Council end at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, this procedure would apply: Each House should designate a new or continuing Councilor from within its respective House, to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, not as an elected Vice Chair. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected. The Designated Interim Vice Chairs will co-chair the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. Once the election is completed their service in those roles would end. Candidates for Chair will not be eligible to serve as Designated Interim Vice Chairs, to avoid potential conflicts of interest. However, Interim Vice Chairs are not prohibited from being appointed as continuing Vice Chairs by their respective Houses following a successful Chair election." SCENARIO 4: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council, and the Houses do not designate Interim Vice Chairs. Final Proposed Language: “If both Houses should fail to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, the non-voting NCA will be designated Interim Chair to oversee the election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected."

5 10

COMPLETED: Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Dear SCI members, The Consensus Call ended COB Monday, 25 April. As no objections were received the proposed revisions are deemed accepted by full consensus. The next step is for the proposed revisions to be put out for Public Comment. However, as discussed during the SCI call on 21 April as there may be further revisions relating to the Chair/Vice Chair election procedures it was recommended that one Public Comment period could be held for both sets of revisions, which will reduce the amount of time required for comment. Once the Public Comment period has ended and changes, if any, are considered, the final proposed revisions will be sent to the GNSO Council for consideration along with a draft motion for approval. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:23 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER DEADLINE EXTENDED: Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions Dear SCI members, As agreed at the SCI meeting last week the deadline on this consensus call is extended through TODAY Monday, 25 April. As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call. The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. Background: On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016. The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations. On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call. If there are no objections by Monday, 25 April (deadline extended from 21 April), the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER DEADLINE EXTENDED: Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Dear SCI members, As agreed at the SCI meeting last week the deadline on this consensus call is extended through TODAY Monday, 25 April. As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call. The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. Background: On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016. The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations. On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call. If there are no objections by Monday, 25 April (deadline extended from 21 April), the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 2

DEADLINE EXTENDED: Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
by Julie Hedlund April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear SCI members, As agreed at the SCI meeting today the deadline on this consensus call is extended through Monday, 25 April. As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call. The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. Background: On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016. The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations. On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call. If there are no objections by Monday, 25 April (deadline extended from 21 April), the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat from SCI call 21 April 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 21 April 2016: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-21apr16-en.mp3 On page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC – Primary – Vice Chair Amr Elsadr – NCUC – Primary Rudi Vansnick – NPOC –Primary –Chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary Renata Aquino Ribeiro – NCUC - Alternate Angie Graves – BC – Primary Sara Bockey – RrSG – Primary Karel Douglas – NCSG – Alternate Apologies: None ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Glen de saint Gery Julie Hedlund Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Chat Transcript 21 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) meeting held on 21 April 2016. Sara Bockey:Hello Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome Sara! Angie Graves:am on hold waiting to be joined to the call Michelle DeSmyter:I will let the operator know you are holding- one moment Amr Elsadr:Hi Angie. Hi all. Angie Graves:Hi Amr Amr Elsadr:Are we expecting Anne or Lori today? Julie Hedlund:@Amr: I have not heard otherwise. Lori asked for the calendar invite to be sent to her again. Julie Hedlund:I haven't heard from Anne. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. Michelle DeSmyter:I will go ahead and send out another reminder that the call is taking place now Julie Hedlund:@Amr -- 25th or 26th for the extension? Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Thank you for confirming. Julie Hedlund:25 April. Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Karel! Rudi Vansnick:hi Karel Karel Douglas:Hi ALL Karel Douglas:Hi Rudi Amr Elsadr:@Julie: Are you suggesting one public comment period for both issues, or two public comment periods running alongside each other? Amr Elsadr:It wouldn't be for the next Council meeting for sure. Too little time for public comments. Rudi Vansnick:hi Mary Mary Wong:40 Karel Douglas:I am seeking some 'quick' guidance. I am an alternate to Stefania (Primary) and according to SCI charter only one of us is permitted to participate at this conf call Amr Elsadr:@Julie: That sounds efficient, but I wonder if it may be found confusing? Just a thought. Mary Wong:@Karel, all members can attend - but voting is only for primary members. Amr Elsadr:@Karel: You're both welcome for all calls. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: We can be very clear that there are two separate changes, which we have done in the past. It seemed to work fine. Amr Elsadr:OK. Thanks Julie. Karel Douglas:thanks Mary / Amr - the wording in the charter reads "Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call." Karel Douglas:It should probably be amended to allow the Alternate to partake and /or observe but voting be reserved for the primary Amr Elsadr:@Karel: That is correct. If the primary is unable to declare a consensus call for any reason (offline or absent), the alternate is meant to be able to step up. That is my interpretation of the charter, but it isn't really specific. Karel Douglas:Thanks Amr for the clarification Mary Wong:@Karel, you can participate in all conference calls and meetings; as noted, it is only when voting (e.g. for Chair/Vice Chair). In formal Consensus Calls that can be done by either the primary or secondary delegate, but not both. Mary Wong:Thanks, Amr! Karel Douglas:Thanks Mary - The verbiage could be clearer as it currently can lead to some ambiguity Karel Douglas:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter Amr Elsadr:Funny. This committee is meant to clear up ambiguities in the GNSO Operating Procedures!! :-D Karel Douglas:HAHAHA - excatly what I was thinking Amr!!! Amr Elsadr:Agree with WUK on this. Sara Bockey:Question re election process that's out of the box from what we've been discussing. Is there a reason why we couldn't do away with "Houses" and have simple majority of all votes for any councilors put forward for chair? Just curious. Sara Bockey:Newbie question I know. Just curious Mary Wong:That would require changes to the current Procedures Julie Hedlund:@Sara: The current procedures state, "a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house." Mary Wong:It is also not within scope of the current request from the Council. Amr Elsadr:@Sara: Interesting thought, but as a first thought, I'd rather not. Majority of the two houses is closer to consensus than a simple majority of both houses. Julie Hedlund:@Sara: The Procedures also state, "a. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair." Sara Bockey:OK - cool. Amr Elsadr:Or maybe not considering the larger number of councillors in the NCPH. :) Amr Elsadr:It actually is an interesting thought. :) Mary Wong:Yes it is! Sara Bockey:Just seems it would be less complicated if we didn't divide the GNSO Mary Wong:I think this arrangement was part of the agreed result of the last GNSO Review, where the bicameral House arrangement was launched. Sara Bockey:gotcha Amr Elsadr:I need to think about this more. There are possibilities. Gotta do the math. :) Amr Elsadr:I would like to hear from the IPC on this, since it is their suggestion. Amr Elsadr:But I agree with WUK. Julie Hedlund:All: Anne is tied up on another call and will join if she can get away. Julie Hedlund:Not sure if Lori can join. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. Renata Aquino Ribeiro:hi sorry for joining in late Karel Douglas:Thanks Julie Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Renata & Anne! Karel Douglas:Hi Renata Karel Douglas:...and Anne Renata Aquino Ribeiro:hi thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi all - so sorry to be late -client issue. Could not get through by dialing in so I asked for a dial out. Just listening now. Julie Hedlund:@Rudi: Old hand. Amr Elsadr:Hi Anne. Hi Renata. Karel Douglas:Is "14 calender days" the usual time frame for such activities. The suggestion to increase the time frame from 10 to 14 calender days allows for a generous period of time for the parties to decide upon an intrerim chair Amr Elsadr:Wait a minute..., what changes are we going to make? What alternative do we have to this scenario?! :) Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Michelle now in. Michelle DeSmyter:Absolutely! :) Mary Wong:As this is a last-resort scenario, it is hard to see any other reasonable alternative. Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Exactly. :) Julie Hedlund:@Amr and Wolf-Ulrich: Do we then include the language proposed by Wolf-Ulrich, or leave it as is? Julie Hedlund:Or do we write in an exception, if so what should it say? Amr Elsadr:As long as every Councillor is elligible to run, we can't cover all scenarios. Unless we introduce a rule that allows for a non-councillor to act as interim chair of the council. :) Julie Hedlund:@Amr: I think we need to avoid that :-) Julie Hedlund:It would be simplest to leave the text as is. Amr Elsadr:@Julie: My suggestion is to leave scenario 4 as is. We may need to explain to the council what the thinking was here, and why we made an exception. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Thank you for clarifying. Karel Douglas:Newbie question ( Amr ) - NCA? Amr Elsadr:Sorry Karel. Nominating Committee Appointee. Renata Aquino Ribeiro:I think leaving as is would be good Karel Douglas:Ahhh....thanks buddy Karel Douglas:i didnt find it in my glossary of abbreviations Amr Elsadr:There are three NCAs on Council. Two voting NCAs attached to each of the houses, and one non-voting NCA who is homeless. :) Amr Elsadr:I meant two voting NCA, one attached to each house. Karel Douglas:got it, thanks Amr Amr Elsadr:Thanks Anne. Appreciate it. Amr Elsadr:I will go ahead and ask folks in the NCUC, especially to clarify whether or not I'm missing something as a result of the last inter-sessional. Thanks again Anne. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Julie! Amr Elsadr:Was dropped off the audio bridge just now. :( Rudi Vansnick:we are close to the end ;) Amr Elsadr:Back on now, but missed what Julie just said. Amr Elsadr:OK. Wonderful. Thanks. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Just that the next step after this language is agreed to is for staff to draft changes to the Operating Procedures for review/consensus call. Amr Elsadr:Thanks much Julie. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Good point Julie. we ca Anne Aikman-Scalese:need OP changes for Consensus call! Amr Elsadr:Two weeks sounds good. Julie Hedlund:@Anne: That is correct! Renata Aquino Ribeiro:ok Sara Bockey:That's the 12th, right? Angie Graves:5th, no? Sara Bockey:5th works Renata Aquino Ribeiro:same time right? Julie Hedlund:All: 05 May at 1800 UTC Amr Elsadr:Oh..., actually I won't be able to make it on teh 5th of May. Will be travelling. Renata Aquino Ribeiro:ok Karel Douglas:2 weeks is good for me - 5th is good (cinco de maio) Amr Elsadr:Or I "may" be travelling from May 3rd to May 6th. Karel Douglas:cinco de mayo* Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone. Have a nice day! Karel Douglas:Thanks Rudi...and all Sara Bockey:Thanks all! Karel Douglas:Bye Angie Graves:You, too! Bye Renata Aquino Ribeiro:thanks bye

1 0

Notes/Actions: SCI Meeting 21 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Dear SCI members, Please see below the notes/actions captured from the SCI meeting held on 21 April. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Staff will separately send a notice for the extension on the Consensus Call as requested below. The GNSO Secretariat also will send a notice for a call in two weeks on Thursday, 05 May at the usual time of 1800 UTC. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions from 21 April SCI Meeting: 1. Process Relating to Motions & Amendments Discussion: There was a request from Amr Elsadr to extend the deadline of the Consensus Call through Monday, 25 April. There were no objections to this request. Staff suggested that both these revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and those that may result from the Chair/Vice Chair discussion could be combined in one Public Comment period. There were no objections to the suggestion. ACTION ITEM: Staff will resend the consensus call with the extended deadline. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections: ISSUE 2: Scenarios relating to the gap to be addressed when the Vice Chairs' terms end at the same time as that of the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected by that time. Discussion: Proposal from IPC — even where a Vice Chair is continuing in his/her term, the relevant House should have the ability to appoint a different Interim Vice Chair that is otherwise eligible. The comment was that this could be an unnecessary complication. ACTION ITEMS: Anne Aikman-Scalese will bring the comment concerning the IPC proposal back to the IPC for consideration, and Amr Elsadr will bring the proposal and comment back to the NCUC for consideration. The SCI members should review the final proposed language below for each scenario. SCENARIO 1: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but both Vice Chairs are continuing on the Council. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where no Chair is conclusively elected, the two Vice Chairs shall jointly oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a new Chair is elected.” SCENARIO 2: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but one Vice Chair is continuing on the Council, while the other Vice Chair’s term on the Council is ending. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where one of Vice-Chair's terms on the Council ends at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, the House with a vacant Vice-Chair position shall designate an Interim Vice Chair from within this House to join the continuing Vice Chair to oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business. The deadline for the vacant House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected." SCENARIO 3: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected in the first round, and neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council. Final Proposed Language: “In the case where both Vice-Chairs’ terms on the Council end at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, this procedure would apply: Each House should designate a new or continuing Councilor from within its respective House, to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, not as an elected Vice Chair. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected. The Designated Interim Vice Chairs will co-chair the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. Once the election is completed their service in those roles would end. Candidates for Chair will not be eligible to serve as Designated Interim Vice Chairs, to avoid potential conflicts of interest. However, Interim Vice Chairs are not prohibited from being appointed as continuing Vice Chairs by their respective Houses following a successful Chair election." SCENARIO 4: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council, and the Houses do not designate Interim Vice Chairs. Final Proposed Language: “If both Houses should fail to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, the non-voting NCA will be designated Interim Chair to oversee the election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected."

1 0

Notes/Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Dear SCI members, Please see below the notes/actions captured from the SCI meeting held on 07 April. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Staff will separately send a notice for the consensus call as requested below. The GNSO Secretariat also will send a notice for a call in two weeks on Thursday, 21 April at the usual time of 1800 UTC. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions from 07 April SCI Meeting: 1. Process Relating to Motions & Amendments Notes: There was discussion on whether there should be a deadline for submitting amendments. The SCI members agreed that there would be no deadline. The SCI members asked staff to correct the footnote and then send out for a consensus call the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. ACTION ITEM: Staff will amend the footnote and send the proposed revisions to the SCI for a consensus call. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections Scenarios: Notes: There was discussion on the various options for the deadlines referenced in scenarios 2, 3, and 4. It appeared that no one had a problem with 14 calendar days. Amr proposed new language for scenario 3: Replace "which may include the voting NCAs" with "from within its respective House”. After the meeting Anne noted a new comment from IPC and requested that it should be added to the agenda for discussion on the next call: that even where a Vice Chair is continuing in his/her term, the relevant House should have the ability to appoint a different Interim Vice Chair that is otherwise eligible. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Affirm that the deadline of 14 calendar days is the preferred option for scenarios 2, 3, and 4. 2. Review the proposed new language for scenario 3: Replace "which may include the voting NCAs" with "from within its respective House”. 3. Consider the issue raised by IPC that even where a Vice Chair is continuing in his/her term, the relevant House should have the ability to appoint a different Interim Vice Chair that is otherwise eligible. ISSUE 2: Is there a gap to be addressed when the Vice Chairs' terms end at the same time as that of the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected by that time? SCENARIO 1: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but both Vice Chairs are continuing on the Council. Suggestion: “In the case where no Chair is conclusively elected, the two Vice Chairs shall jointly oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a new Chair is elected.” SCENARIO 2: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, but one Vice Chair is continuing on the Council, while the other Vice Chair’s term on the Council is ending. Suggestion: “In the case where one of Vice-Chair's terms on the Council ends at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, [OPTION 1: the remaining Vice Chair shall oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a new Chair is elected] OR [OPTION 2: the House with a vacant Vice-Chair position shall designate an Interim Vice Chair to join the continuing Vice Chair to oversee the Chair election and conduct Council business. The deadline for the vacant House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 10 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected [OR: 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected] [OR: 1 week prior to the next scheduled GNSO Council meeting.] SCENARIO 3: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected in the first round, and neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council. Suggestion: “In the case where both Vice-Chairs’ terms on the Council end at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, this procedure would apply: Each House should designate a new or continuing Councilor from within its respective House, which may include the voting and non-voting NCAs, to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, not as an elected Vice Chair. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 10 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected [OR: 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected] [OR: 1 week prior to the next scheduled GNSO Council meeting.] The Designated Interim Vice Chairs will co-chair the Chair election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. Once the election is completed their service in those roles would end. Candidates for Chair will not be eligible to serve as Designated Interim Vice Chairs, to avoid potential conflicts of interest. [However, Interim Vice Chairs are not prohibited from being appointed as continuing Vice Chairs by their respective Houses following a successful Chair election.] SCENARIO 4: A new GNSO Council Chair is not elected, neither of the two Vice Chairs is continuing on the Council, and the Houses do not designate Interim Vice Chairs. Suggestion: “If both Houses should fail to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, [the] non-voting NCA will be designated Interim Chair to oversee the election and conduct Council business until such time as a Chair is conclusively elected. The deadline for each House to designate its Interim Vice Chair is 10 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected [OR: 14 calendar days following the Council meeting at which no Chair was conclusively elected] [OR: 1 week prior to the next scheduled GNSO Council meeting]"

3 5

REMINDER: Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
by Julie Hedlund April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Dear SCI members, This is a reminder. As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call. The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. Background: On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016. The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations. On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call. If there are no objections or changes received in two weeks by Thursday 21 April, the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

5 10

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat from SCI call 07 April 2016 18:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 07 April 2016: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-07apr16-en.mp3 On page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Amr Elsadr – NCUC - Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC – Primary – Vice Chair Sara Bockey – RrSG - Primary Lawrence Olawale-Roberts – BC – Alternate Lori S. Schulman – IPC - Alternate Rudi Vansnick – NPOC –Primary –Chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary Apologies: Karel Douglas – NCSG – Alternate Angie Graves – BC – Primary ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Chat Transcript 07 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) meeting held on 07 April 2016. Amr Elsadr:Hi all. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi everyone! Mary Wong:We had snow for two days up here in New England - a few inches, and below freezing temps!!! Amr Elsadr:I have a tan. :) Mary Wong:Ha Julie Hedlund:Lucky you Amr :-) Our DC weather is giving me whiplash ;-) Julie Hedlund:Hot then cold then in between. Amr Elsadr:Sorry about rubbing my holiday in then Julie. If it helps, I didn't get to see any dolphins, which are normally around all the time. ;-) Julie Hedlund:Sorry no dolphins Amr :-( Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Was glad to know you were OK. Mary Wong:We also tried to make the language similar to the tone of the rest of the Operating Procedures. Julie Hedlund:And otherwise it is the same as the language proposed by the Sub Team and accepted by the SCI. Rudi Vansnick:@Amr :thanks and indeed it was scary ... if it happened 2 weeks earlier I was in the airport at that time Mary Wong:@Anne, yes - that was the main reason why the team felt that keeping the current practice was preferable despite the uncertainty. Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Mary. Amr Elsadr:If I'm not mistaken, the discussions that took place on this were subteam discussions, not full committee. Right? Rudi Vansnick:@Amr: indeed in the subteam Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Yes, but the Sub Team presented its recommendations to the SCI and these were discussed and agreed on in Marrakech as the first agenda item. Julie Hedlund:With the outcome that the Staff should proceed to draft language. Amr Elsadr:@Julie: Thanks. And I missed that first discussion in Marrakech!! My bad. Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:one of the critical points considered was the fact that there could be new information critical to the decision to be made that could nececitate an amendment Amr Elsadr:That's a good point Lawrence. Amr Elsadr:Not one that I had previously considered. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: But sometimes these late amendments have been helpful and have improved the motion. Mary Wong:@Amr, not a comment on the suggestion but on a detail - 48 hours wouldn't work with the Council's current practice during F2F ICANN Meetings, when they have the Tuesday night discussion before the Wednesday public meeting. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Amr: Isn't your policy meeting also used to discuss potential amendments to be submitted by your SG? Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Not sure how the Tuesday night meeting is a problem. Could you please clarify? Amr Elsadr:@WUK: Actually..., yes. Another point I hadn't considered. Mary Wong:@Amr, as in, if SG/Cs discuss the original motion during the day on Tuesday resulting in a Councilor submitting a proposed amendment on Tuesday evening Amr Elsadr:@Mary: OK..., got it. I can see how my suggestion is really messy. It's helpful to have this discussion. Mary Wong:Not messy - it higlights the difficulty between preserving flexibility for the sake of Council collaboration versus certainty of a deadline to avoid delays! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:So you see: it's councilors' risk... Amr Elsadr:@WUK: You talking about the board game? :) Julie Hedlund:@Wolf-Ulrich, that is an error. We missed it. Mary Wong:@Wolf-Ulrich, you are right. We missed correcting that footnote and only just noticed it too! Mary Wong:Apologies. Julie Hedlund:Yes, apologies. Amr Elsadr:Nice catch. Mary Wong:Very, keeps us on our toes! Julie Hedlund:@If there are not changes to the text the next step is to send it out for a consensus call (with the footnote fixed of course). Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:great, nice to see this gradually moving on Amr Elsadr:Had bad audio. Missed the last part of what Rudi was saying. Amr Elsadr:I am not opposed to a consensus call at this time. Amr Elsadr:Consensus call on list with a two-week deadline, correct? Mary Wong:@Rudi, the consensus call will take place via the email list. Mary Wong:Yes, with the usual two week deadline, presumably. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:footnote 1!! Julie Hedlund:@Amr: That is correct. Mary Wong:With correct footnote :) Julie Hedlund:@Wolf-Ulrich: We'll fix it before sending :-) Amr Elsadr:@Mary: ;-) Amr Elsadr:I would like to take this back to the NCUC during the two week period. Thanks to everyone. Julie Hedlund:All: I have unsynced the document so you may move through it. Amr Elsadr:I'm OK with the deadline alternatives in option 2. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:what's option 2? Alternative 2? Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Thanks for that. Those considerations also apply to the time needed to go through scenario 3, then failing to appoint at least one interim VC, then moving fwd to scenario 4 as a result. Rudi Vansnick:somehow i have the feeling considering a period to short to allow people to have access to all information would probably harm the voting process for electing the chair Mary Wong:@Amr, yes Amr Elsadr:@Lawrence: If both houses fail to appoint VCs, the council moves fwd with scenario 4, right? Amr Elsadr:Scenario 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Mary Wong:@Amr, yes Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:@ Amr i totally agree Rudi Vansnick:what if the vacant VC position is meanwhile filled in by the nomcom appointee ? Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:can we then say that in scenario 3, where there are no nominations from both houses to conduct an election 14 days after the AGM, the non voting NCA Ssteps in Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:automatically Amr Elsadr:Apologies. Was dropped off the call. On AC room audio now. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: What was the language you suggested? Rudi Vansnick:let's handle it in SCI Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:full SCI yes Amr Elsadr:@Julie: It was in scenario 3. Replace "which may incldue the voting NCAs" with "from within its respective House". Mary Wong:Sorry, all, I have another call. Thanks for a great discussion! Amr Elsadr:@Julie: That will automatically include the NCAs in each house, but specify that each NCA can only be appointed by his/her house, not the other. Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Thanks so much. Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Sounds good. Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:yes and if possible a longer timeframe Julie Hedlund:@Rudi: We will get the call scheduled for 21 April at 1800 UTC. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Okay I think. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:ok Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:thanks all Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Sara Bockey:Thank you all! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:thanks and bye Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone!

1 0

Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
by Julie Hedlund April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear SCI members, As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call. The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions. Background: On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016. The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations. On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call. If there are no objections or changes received in two weeks by Thursday 21 April, the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1