[Gnso-bylaws-dt] GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Tue Oct 11 19:39:42 UTC 2016

Steve, Matthew and all,

to be correct, the council appointed James as interim and added
“Within three months after the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council, the GNSO is expected to finalize its decision on the appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration”

So there is some work to be done in this respect. As long as this is not finished James shall act as interim.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Steve DelBianco 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:51 PM
To: matthew shears ; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org 
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Matthew — the note reflects only that CSG reps don’t think that a Council (voting as separate houses) should speak for GNSO on the new bylaws.   

I can’t see how this opinion would prevent GNSO from being a decisional participant in the EC, since that happens when GNSO informs the EC of our Representative. (see Bylaws at Section 6 here)    On 29-Sep the GNSO Council voted 18-0 to name James Bladel as interim EC Rep (link), so perhaps that notice has already been given. 

Nor do I think the CSG views would prevent GNSO Council from voting on matters arising from the new bylaws.  

Hope that sets you at ease.
Steve

From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:32 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.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] GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Hi Steve, all

Related to the report I had asked a question with regards to the implications of the following 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.

This (my highlighting) seems to suggest that the views of the IPC, ISPCP and BC is that GNSO Council cannot/should not exercise the community powers until the issue of the House structure is addressed?  

Could someone explain?  And if that is the case are we saying that the GNSO will not be participating as a decisional participant in the EC until that time?   (Of course I may have misunderstood but would appreciate enlightening.)

Thanks.

Matthew

On 11/10/2016 16:53, Steve DelBianco wrote:

  Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these docs. 

  Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs: 

  Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. (thank you!)

  As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director.  I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column:

    4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these sections:
      17.3 – Amending the CSC charter.  Bylaws require approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). 

      Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director.  Bylaws require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i).   Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision.

  While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT will understand what our recommendations are all about.  That background takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1.

  I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions.    Added Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for GNSO.  (Steve Metalitz agreed).  With those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy matters.  Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion.  Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and rejected). 

  Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7.

  Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the recommendations, in my view. 

  My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday. 

  So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today. 

  Thanks again for your serious attention to this project.

  —Steve

_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt

-- 
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20161011/f2f266d2/attachment.html>