[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Bylaws DT Meeting, 10-October
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Sun Oct 9 20:25:33 UTC 2016
Hi Steve,
As to the general report, I think it is too long. Page three has three
paragraphs that only capture the opinions of one member or the minority. I
think these three paragraphs should be added to the minority report and
removed from page three.
In the report, we should focus on the answers to two questions: Who should
speak for GNSO and How should the decisions be made. The first thing we
need to say in the report is what our recommendations are for each
question. You can, of course, explain the rationale and viewpoints later on
in the report but I think you need to have the answers to the questions at
the beginning of the report. For example, for question one, there is a
conclusion paragraph stating that:
*"DT Conclusion on Question 1:* On 21-Sep the DT did a straw poll on the
general question of whether Council should speak for GNSO on its new or
additional rights and responsibilities under the revised Bylaws. 6 DT
members were in favor and three against. While 1/3 is a significant
minority whose views could be reflected in our final report, the DT chair
moved on to the second general question, assuming that Council was to speak
for the GNSO, as described next."
The above paragraph should be at the beginning of the report and the
explanation of minority views in minority report.
The same applies to the second question: how GNSO council should make
decisions. I was a bit lost and could not find the concrete responses to
this question ( sorry if I overlooked). We don't have to go into the
details of a suggestion that was rejected by the majority (page 5). We just
have to at the beginning of the report respond to How and Who questions.
Briefly and to the point.
Thanks a lot for all the work.
Best
Farzaneh
On 8 October 2016 at 05:28, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:
> Couple of docs here to review before our call on Monday 10-Oct at 13 UTC.
>
> First attachment is updated draft of our report (doc and pdf).
>
> 1. deleted the last page since we already reflect that discussion on page
> 3.
> 2. changed the recommendations page to include a reference to the matrix.
> (we also expect that Amr may circulate some edits over the weekend)
>
> Second is updated matrix showing specific recommendations (doc and pdf).
>
> 1. Split the table row for 4.3 Reconsideration Requests, to show that the
> GNSO could decide to be a claimant on its own.
> 2. Added Darcy’s suggestions for 25.2 and 26(a)
> 3. Added answer to Darcy question about which EC decisions are covered in
> Annex D Section 1
> 4. Added Wolf-Ulrich’s suggestion for GNSO Supermajority for Sections
> 25.2(b), 26(a), and Annex D: 3.1(a), 3.2(a), 3.3(a)
> 5. Added call notes for Sec 6.2 regarding GNSO rep on the EC
> 6. Added call notes for Sec 7.12 — designating *Interim** Directors* to
> fill vacancies created by EC recall(s)
> 7. note that new bylaw 17.3(d) (regarding CSC Charter) requires a
> threshold we have not seen before: a simple majority of GNSO Council. (
> Do we want to amend that to a majority of each house?
> 8. Added call notes and staff reply for Sec 18.7 (chair of IFR Team) and
> Sec 19.6 (chair of SCWG). Bylaws say that GNSO names a co-chair from
> among the 6 GNSO reps. That suggests having Council approve the GNSO
> co-chair by majority of each house.
>
>
> On Monday we’ll begin where we left-off, Sec 22.8 on page 16. There are
> just 23 bylaws sections on the remaining pages, so we’ll easily get through
> that on our 90-minute call.
>
>
> From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:03 PM
> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting 05
> October
>
> Dear DT Members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting
> on 05 October. These high-level notes are designed to help DT members
> navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute
> for the recording. The recording and chat are provided separately and are
> posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/di
> splay/GBIDT/DT+Meetings. The mapping document from Steve DelBianco is
> attached.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at
> 1300 UTC*
>
>
>
> *Action Items: *
>
>
>
> 1. Staff will clarify whether 19.6 Election of Co-Chairs and Liaisons
> references the same process as for co-chairs as IFRT in 18.7.
>
> 2. Steve D will circulate another version of the report with minor
> changes. Dropping last page. No objection from Steve M.
>
> 3. DT members will continue to review the mapping document beginning with
> Section 22.8.
>
>
>
> *Review the mapping document and note any DT recommendation where DT
> members would like to argue for a decision threshold that differs from what
> is indicated in the document.*
>
>
>
> *Article 4 -- 4.2 & 4.3:*
>
>
>
> · Steve M: Surprised in blue. 4.3 B talks about a supporting
> organization being a claiment -- GNSO on its own initiating reconsideration
> -- should be green.
>
> · Steve D. 4.3 b -- If GNSO made a decision to be a claimant it
> would be a majority of each House. What else?
>
> · Steve M.: Probably higher than that. These should be
> separate. GNSO as part of EC and other GNSO acting on its own.
>
> · Steve D.: 4.2 and 4.3 b -- GNOS rep on EC approve a
> Reconsideration request -- majority of each House? Or different level? If
> GNSO itself decides to be a claimant for a reconsideration request -- what
> level of support?
>
> · Ed Morris: Majority of each House.
>
> · Steve D.: Steve M., supermajority?
>
> · Steve M.: Some type of supermajority.
>
>
>
> *Poll: How many for higher than majority of each House? 1 - Steve M.; 6 –
> majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *4.3b *
>
>
>
> *Poll: 1 – Steve M. higher; 6 -- majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *4.3(j) -- IRP standing panel -- majority of each House*
>
>
>
> *Poll: Steve M.: 1-higher; 6 - majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *4.6: Specific Reviews -- Chairs of ACs/SOs select a group of 21 review
> team members -- each GNSO constituency and SG can nominate and decision to
> approve 21 members would be presented to Council to approve. *
>
>
>
> *Agreed: 4.6a majority of each House consensus.*
>
>
>
> *4.7 Community mediation*
>
>
>
> *Agreed: Majority of each House. No objections.*
>
>
>
> *Article 6, section 6.1 -- GNSO representative on the EC. GNSO Council
> has appointed an interim post -- Council* Chair
>
>
>
> Poll: Majority or supermajority: 1 member -- Steve M; 6 – majority.
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> · Marika: Current way Bylaws are written the assumption is the
> Chair would take that role unless another was selected. How would you deal
> with multiple candidates/nominees?
>
> · Amr: The Bylaws have referred to the GNSO Council Chair as the
> GNSO Chair.
>
> · Marika: It requires a notification to the ICANN Secretary. Can
> that happen if there has been no selection? Or does the DT need to make a
> clarification -- authorized to make that notification unless the GNSO
> decides to select another person.
>
> · Steve D.: Not sure we will get to that on this call. First
> question is when we are nominating -- majority or supermajority.
>
>
>
> *Poll: Supermajority or greater than simple majority?*
>
>
>
> · Ed Morris: Simple majority.
>
> · Amr: Good with simple majority.
>
> · Darcy: Agree.
>
> · Farzaneh: Agree.
>
> · Steve M.: Might not get even simple majority for a nominee.
> Not sure that we need to get into every contingency.
>
>
>
> *6.1 Composition and Organization of the EC – Agreed: majority of DT
> agreed that Council speaks for GNSO and simple majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *6.2 EC Powers – Agreed: Council speaks for GNSO.*
>
>
>
> *6.3 EC Administration -- DT recommends that GNSO representative on EC
> acts through the majority of each House*
>
>
>
> *Article 7: Board of Directors, Section 7.2 -- majority of each House --
> in appointing replacement directors.*
>
>
>
> · Steve M.: 7.12 -- Entire Board is recalled. Don't see how that
> could be simple majority. Support a higher threshold.
>
> · Ed Morris: We will be under time pressure to appoint an interim
> member -- would agree with supermajority if not interim director.
>
>
>
> *Agreed: Simple majority for interim directors and follow already defined
> procedures for directors.*
>
>
>
> *Article 11, Section 11.3: What action needs to happen here?*
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> · Julie H: Need to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures voting
> threshold.
>
> · Marika: Question is whether you want to call out these voting
> thresholds separately that relate to the EC.
>
> · Steve D.: Could clarify that Council references the GNSO in the
> Bylaws.
>
> · Steve M.: GNSO cannot amend the Bylaws by itself, nor the
> Council.
>
> · Steve D.: Staff would come back with amendments to procedures
> or Bylaws based on the DT recommendations on who and how. DT will want to
> comment. If in the Bylaws then the EC has a role in approving. Better if
> Bylaws said that Council speaks for GNSO.
>
> · Amr: If it the consensus of the GNSO to move in that
> direction. Language in the current Bylaws supports the Council carrying
> out the duties of the GNSO.
>
> · Steve M.: The point about the Bylaws change is that the GNSO
> can't change the Bylaws by itself. Don't agree with Amr that there if
> there is no direct prohibition then the Council can do it.
>
> · Ed Morris: It is a valid point, but not sure that this DT is
> the one to reconcile this, but maybe when we get to the Council -- may need
> to ask Legal if we need to amend the Bylaws. Leave it for Council to
> decide.
>
>
>
> *Agreed: DT realizes that some recommendations will be reflected in
> amendments to the procedures and some in the Bylaws changes. These would
> then go up for public comment.*
>
>
>
> 16.2*PTI Governance: Approved by the EC -- GNSO's rep. Majority of each
> House.*
>
>
>
> *Poll: Supermajority or majority?*
>
>
>
> · Ed Morris: This is a fundamental power. Would prefer a
> supermajority.
>
> · Steve D.: Anyone else want to raise the threshold?
>
> · Steve M. Supermajority.
>
> · Farzi: Supermajority.
>
> · Amr: Supermajority.
>
> · Darcy: Supermajority.
>
> · Wolf-Ulrich: Supermajority.
>
>
>
> *Agreed: Supermajority.*
>
>
>
> *16.3 IANA Naming Functions Contract: EC approves changes to contractual
> terms. Agreed: Majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *17.1 CSC -- escalate a failure -- EC authorizing instructions. Agreed:
> Majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> · Steve M.: ccNSO and GNSO may address matters escalated by the
> CSC, pursuant to their operating rules and procedures.
>
> · Steve D.: You are right, not GNSO rep. GNSO Council speaks for
> GNSO. Majority of each House would decide. Higher threshold? None.
>
>
>
> *17.2 CSC Composition, appointment, term, and removal -- GNSO Liaison.
> Agreed: Council to approve by majority of each House. Current James
> Gannon.*
>
>
>
> *17.3(b) GNSO Council would respond by a majority of each House. Agreed:
> majority of each House.*
>
>
>
> *17.3(c)*
>
>
>
> · Steve M says GNSO can request -- who is empowered to request
> the formation?
>
> · Steve D.: No role on the registries stakeholder group, but
> there is a role is for recommendation.
>
>
>
> *18 IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs). Bylaws say supermajority. DT
> doesn't have to make a recommendation for 18.2. Same for 18.6.*
>
>
>
> *18.7 Composition of IFR Review Teams - no role for Council each
> Constituency and Stakeholder Group would designate its own member.*
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> · Amr -- Q: GNSO SGs need to collectively agree on a uniform
> process for the nomination and appointment process for IFRT co-chair. A
> role for Council?
>
> · Steve D. GNSO will have several representatives -- recommend
> that the representatives from the GNSO will appoint their co-chair.
>
> · Steve M.: Agree.
>
> · Amr: Ask for clarification -- GNSO SGs also appointed members
> to CWG-Accountability -- but GNSO appointed.
>
> · Steve D.: Bylaws say co-chairs selected from among the GNSO
> representatives. Don't see a need for Council to get involved. Recommend
> that each GNSO SG designates its member and GNSO Review Team members will
> select their co-chair.
>
>
>
> *18.12 Special IFR – No action by the DT: required review Bylaws say
> supermajority approval for comment period request.*
>
>
>
> *Article 19.4 – No action by the DT: Bylaws references supermajority.*
>
>
>
> *Article 19.6 Election of co-chairs and liaisons*
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> · Steve D.: Suggest simple majority.
>
> · Steve M.: Why not the same as co-chair of IFRT in 18.7.
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* Staff to clarify whether this section references the same
> process as for co-chairs as IFRT in 18.7.
>
>
>
> *Article 22 – Agreed (see DT Draft Report)*
>
>
>
> · Steve D. Pick up on the next call. Reminder to complete the
> doodle poll.
>
> · Steve M.: Already covered 22.7.
>
> · Steve D. You are right. Pick up at 22.8 on the next call.
>
>
> From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM
> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Action Item re: 19.6 Election of Co-Chairs and
> Liaisons
>
> Dear DT Members,
>
>
>
> Per this action item from today’s call: “Staff will clarify whether 19.6
> Election of Co-Chairs and Liaisons references the same process as for
> co-chairs as IFRT in 18.7”
>
>
>
> Please see the attached excerpt from the Bylaws of the full text of
> Section 19.5 SCWG Composition and Section 19.6 Elections of Co-Chairs and
> Liaisons. Note that 19.5 states:
>
>
>
> [Begin Excerpt]
>
>
>
> (a) Each SCWG shall consist of the following members and liaisons to be
> appointed in accordance with the rules and procedures of the appointing
> organization:
>
>
>
> (i) Two representatives appointed by the ccNSO from its ccTLD registry
> operator representatives;
>
>
>
> (ii) One non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD
> registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO, appointed by
> the ccNSO; it is strongly recommended that the ccNSO consult with the
> regional ccTLD organizations (i.e., AfTLD, APTLD, LACTLD and CENTR) in
> making its appointment;
>
>
>
> (iii) Three representatives appointed by the Registries Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (iv) One representative appointed by the Registrars Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (v) One representative appointed by the Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (vi) One representative appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> [End Excerpt]
>
>
>
> Furthermore, 19.6 states, “(a) The SCWG shall be led by two co-chairs: one
> appointed by the GNSO from one of the members appointed pursuant to clauses
> (iii)-(vi) of Section 19.5(a) and one appointed by the ccNSO from one of
> the members appointed pursuant to clauses (i)-(ii) of Section 19.5(a).”
>
>
>
> The language in 18.7 appears to be the same, as in the following excerpt:
>
>
>
> [Begin Excerpt]
>
>
>
> Each IFRT shall consist of the following members and liaisons to be
> appointed in accordance with the rules and procedures of the appointing
> organization:
>
>
>
> (a) Two representatives appointed by the ccNSO from its ccTLD registry
> operator representatives;
>
>
>
> (b) One non-ccNSO ccTLD representative who is associated with a ccTLD
> registry operator that is not a representative of the ccNSO, appointed by
> the ccNSO; it is strongly recommended that the ccNSO consult with the
> regional ccTLD organizations (i.e., AfTLD, APTLD, LACTLD, and CENTR) in
> making its appointment;
>
>
>
> (c) Two representatives appointed by the Registries Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (d) One representative appointed by the Registrars Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (e) One representative appointed by the Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> (f) One representative appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>
>
>
> [End Excerpt]
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
>
--
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20161009/5554fb76/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt
mailing list