[Gnso-bylaws-dt] MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team - 10 October 2016

Tue Oct 11 10:46:21 UTC 2016

Hi,

I’ve suggested some edits, and put in comments to the attached document.

On page 1:

"Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure.”

Not that I object to this, but it isn’t exactly what I recollected. I would appreciate some clarification on it. I put in a comment on this in the document.

On Page 3:

I’ve made some edits to the arguments against and in favor of Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, including a sentence I’ve added to the end of the page that explains the relevance of the DT report’s description of the parts of the GNSO.

On Page 4:

There’s a sentence at the beginning of the page that needs to be removed. It points out the rationale of the minority view of why Council should not exercise the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but it is redundant, as this point had already been made earlier in the report. If folks would like to leave it in, then we’ll need to also repeat the arguments in favor here, which would also be redundant.

Also I moved "It was also noted by some DT members that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there currently does not exist any formal procedure or institutional arrangement for the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies to handle these matters.” further down the page to a paragraph, where the following sentence would explain the relevance of this to the DT’s work.

On Page 7:

I added a sentence that further elaborates the view of why the NCAs should be involved in the Council’s work regarding exercising the new powers.

Finally, looking at the 3 recommendations at the beginning of the report, they don’t seem to cover the 3/4 voting threshold required in Annex D 3.2 (a) and (f). Is this somewhere else that I’ve missed?

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 10-Oct] + edits AE.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 923697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20161011/fcd5f445/GNSOBylawsDTreportFinal10-OcteditsAE-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:36 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve
> 
> Some suggested edits and text shifting in the attached.
> 
> I am a little concerned as to the implications of this comment: 
> 
> Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the GNSO cannot exercise the community powers until the issue of the House structure is addressed?  Please elaborate.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> On 10/10/2016 20:43, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> Thanks, Steve.  I’ve made your requested changes in the attached “Map”.  
>> 
>> Also attached is the revised Final Report by our DT.  Note that the Background and Recommendations are on page 1.   On page 2 we have the “Evolution of these recommendations, including Drafting Team deliberations”.   I removed names of DT members in that section.
>> 
>> I’ll be traveling over the next 4 hours and will look for DT member reactions/edits by 12 UTC on Tuesday 11-Oct.
>> 
>> —Steve
>> 
>> 
>> From: Steve Metalitz <met at msk.com>
>> Date: Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:54 PM
>> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar at icann.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team - 10 October 2016
>> 
>> Please correct spelling of “excerpts” on page 1, and of “Recommendation” on the far right column.  
>>  
>> In only three instances, two of them dealing with Section 6.1, the recommendations column employs the term “consensus.”  In one of these instances, 3 of the 9 DT members oppose what is described as the “consensus” view (GNSO Council speaks for GNSO in all cases).   In the other (support required to approve GNSO representative on EC), I believe IPC was the only constituency to oppose the view that a majority of each House is sufficient.  In the third instance (section 16.1), I believe the support for the supermajority requirement on amending PTI articles of incorporation was unanimous.  It is confusing to use the word “consensus” to describe three different levels of support, especially when none of the other recommendations use the word.  So I suggest that “consensus” be dropped from the recommendations column.   
>>  
>> Steve Metalitz 
>>  
>> 
>> Steven J. Metalitz |Partner, through his professional corporation
>> T: 202.355.7902 |met at msk.com
>> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP|www.msk.com
>> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>>  
>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
>>  
>> From: gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:33 PM
>> To: Yesim Nazlar; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] MP3 and Attendance - GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team - 10 October 2016
>>  
>> Thanks, all.   Attached is the final table mapping.   To help our GNSO colleagues print this on Letter/A4 paper, I moved staff’s “Additional Comments” into the previous column.   This allowed us to reduce the doc to 29 pages. 
>>  
>> Please LMK quickly if you have any corrections to this table.
>>  
>> Working on the revised report now…
>>  
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> <GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 10-Oct] ms.docx>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt