[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC

[Michelle DeSmyter]

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team- call held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bylaws-implementation-15sep16-en.mp3
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/


Attendees:

Farzaneh Badii

Steve Metalitz

Darcy Southwell

David Maher

Edward Morris

Steve DelBianco

Matthew Shears



Apologies:

Amr Elsadr



ICANN staff:

Julie Hedlund

Michelle DeSmyter

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archive:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/
DT wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/dh2sAw

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Michelle
Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 15 September 2016
 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 19:00 UTC.
  Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/dh2sAw
  Steve DelBianco:notes from our last meeting are at https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/07-09-2016+GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team
  steve metalitz:Steve was an excellent witness att he hearing.  Congratulations.
  Edward Morris:Agreed. I was very happy to see Senator Cruz fall into a trap sprung by the magic Stress Test 18. Excellent work by Steve.
  Edward Morris:Completely agreeStee. Your information matches that I've received today from contacts i DC.
  Julie Hedlund:@Steve D. The deadline is in a Council motion, so it still stands unless the Council passes a motion to the contrary.
  matthew shears:thats good to hear Steve
  matthew shears:I think we have to move ahead with the focus on Council
  Edward Morris:Exactly Steve
  matthew shears:My prefernce is for as little change as possible - if we can port decision-making as it stands that is preferable.  We need to have a discussions about whether it is appropriate and proportionate to change
  Steve DelBianco:Could staff please put 22.7 on the screen?
  matthew shears:decicional participants are the sos and acs
  Julie Hedlund:@Steve D: I'll get it up.
  matthew shears:I think that's right Steve
  Julie Hedlund:Sorry all, having trouble identifying it to bring up.
  Darcy Southwell:6.1(a) of the new bylaws?
  matthew shears:can we start by addressing the issues where the EC and Decisional particpants are clear - and then address those where they are not
  matthew shears:its a specific "exception" for that particular item I would argue
  matthew shears:+ 1 Steve
  matthew shears:we need to focus on the rule first and then the exceptions
  Steve DelBianco:Julie -- coudl you put up the table I sent you?
  Julie Hedlund:Sorry for the delay Steve.  I lost connectivity.
  steve metalitz:In order not to further prolong this discussion I will just note here the two other provisions I identified that might fall within the third category (yes/no decisions not necessarily within Empowered Community) :  17.3(b):  determining method of review of effectiveness of CSC ; 4.3(b):  GNSO as claimant in reconsideration/IRP.
  Julie Hedlund:All -- the document is unsynced.
  matthew shears:appreciate the table - Steve - its helpful
  Steve DelBianco:Ed is right -- Council resolution for our reccomendations requires GNSO Supermajority
  matthew shears:they would not be there if they did not feel that they had a representative role I susopect
  Steve DelBianco:Question: does any other SO have votint Nom Com reps?
  matthew shears:We can't judge their accountability in isolation of their role - I suspoect that they would argue they are accountabile in some form or another
  Farzaneh Badii:I agree Matt
  Steve DelBianco:@Farzi -- guess we better add Nom Com voting reps to our SOAC Accountability discussions in WS2
  matthew shears:disagree that directed = accountability
  Steve DelBianco:The Bylaws decribe it as "default threshhold" on page 68 of bylaws
  steve metalitz:@Darcy you mean new SG's or C's, correct?
  steve metalitz:@Ed I did not say you supported my proposal, and apologize if I implied that.
  Farzaneh Badii:Was this table sent to the list?
  Julie Hedlund:@Farzi: Not yet, but I will send it after this call.
  Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Julie
  matthew shears:I don't think we should be trying to solve the problem of confused councillors - isn't that out of scope
  Farzaneh Badii:Steve came up with the tests, based on different scenarios?
  Steve DelBianco:@Farzi -- yes, I just imagined some scenarios where a good majority of council might NOT prevail if we required majoirty of each house
  Farzaneh Badii:thanks Steve
  Julie Hedlund:@Steve D: Invented just last year.
  Steve DelBianco:(xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.(xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.(xviii) ApprovalofGGPRecommendations:requiresanaffirmativevoteof a GNSO Supermajority.
  Julie Hedlund:@Steve: Correct that it has not yet been used.
  matthew shears:Steve - the timeline is a massive bind - we almost don't have time to address options other than default - unless we can identify a minimal number of expcetions and work on those
  matthew shears:agree with the approach steve
  Julie Hedlund:0900-1030 next Wednesday
  Julie Hedlund:21 September
  matthew shears:can't we do thursdays this time?
  Farzaneh Badii:I think the tests on the table should be explained Steve .
  matthew shears:agree
  matthew shears:ah
  Farzaneh Badii:good. an explenation :)
  Farzaneh Badii:Thanks Steve.
  Farzaneh Badii:bye
  matthew shears:thanks



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160915/f57327dd/attachment.html>