[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 21 September 1300 UTC

Tue Sep 20 21:58:54 UTC 2016

Dear DT Members,

Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Wednesday, 21 September at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes.  A meeting notice has been sent separately.  Please also see the attached draft Report for discussion as well as the notes from our last call below.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Proposed Agenda:

1.       Roll Call/Statements of Interest

2.       Review Agenda

3.       DT to discuss draft report (attached) -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds

4.       Next steps to finalize the report

5.        Schedule of the final meeting/call

GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, 15 September 2016

Actions/Discussion Notes

1. DT to continue review of table and discussion of decision-making under various scenarios.

·         Summary of discussion on Scenario 1: Assume GNSO Council speaks for the GNSO, but without assuming the current default voting threshold (majority of each house). 

·         Discussion of other voting thresholds for 3 types of Empowered Community (EC) actions:

o   Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc.

o   Approve decisions/actions available to the EC;

o   Exercise document inspection / investigation rights

Action Items:

1.       DT members should review the attached Council Votes Excel spreadsheet and add their own tests.

2.       Steve DelBianco will work with staff to draft an initial version of the implementation plan to be sent in time for discussion at the next call at 1300 UTC on Wednesday, 21 September.

Discussion Notes:

Steve D.: Recap from 07 September meeting: straw poll suggests that we would proceed as if the Council speaks for the GNSO.  Note that the DT could review the staff analysis use of "Council" versus "GNSO" in the Bylaws (see attached document).

Steve M.: GNSO Supermajority - 2/3s of each House -- in the Bylaws.  My constituency does not agree that the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO on non-PDP actions.  I recognize that is a minority viewpoint in this group.

Steve D.: I think the notes reflect that, but we have to achieve consensus in this DT.  Correct: GNSO Supermajority implies Council.  Suggests that there isn't ambiguity in the Bylaws, so that the drafters meant Council.  Agree that the Bylaws seem unambiguous?

Steve M.:  Yes, where that is recorded.

Steve D.: Given that we just have two weeks to the deadline I propose that the Council speaks to the GNSO.  Now we move to the voting threshold for 3 types of decisions.  If we come up with those thresholds they can be mapped to the Bylaws.  Types of decisions are:

·         Approve nominations to PTI, CSC, Review Teams, EC representative, etc.;

·         Approve decisions/actions available to the Empowered Community (such as a petition);

·         Exercise document inspection / investigation rights.

Kinds of thresholds that could work:  Default threshold -- Majority of each House including the NCA reps.  Council has used the default rule for non-policy decisions.  Investigate whether we want to recommend a different set of threshold that don't divide the world by House for these three categories because of the transition.

Steve M.:  There are 3 types of actions.  1) approving nominations.  We first discussed this as a "who" question.  2) yes/no, or support/not support.  3) document inspection/investigation rights.  There are several other places where the GNSO can act as a participant under the new Bylaws that are not necessarily EC activities.  Inspection is one example, but there are others.  Should we expand the third category?  There also is 22.8 determining a credible allegation of fraud or mismanagement that a decisional participant can make.  There are some others.

Ed: Concerning the Decisional Participant I thought it was clear that this was the GNSO's representative to the EC.

Steve M.: So 22.8, joint written certification, the GNSO signs on to a determination, but it is the constituents that determine that there is a credible fraud.  You [question to Steve D.] would put that in a decision of the EC?

Steve D.: Yes.  Because a Decisional Participant is an artifact of the EC.  On the first category I was saying that these are nominations resulting from the new Bylaws.

Ed: 22.8 is a mixed bag.  We have to act in concert, but we can institute it ourselves.  We have to make sure we have a way to start the request for an investigation.

Steve M.: 22.8 is another type of decision.  I tend to agree that we could put it under the second type.

Steve B.: Either way we need voting threshold for how to instruct the Decisional Participant representative.  We still have to agree on voting thresholds that deviate from majority of each House, only for these kinds of decisions.

Ed: You can add 22.7 to 22.8 -- says the "Chair" of the Decisional Participant that is making the request.  It is outside of the EC.

Steve B.: The EC is the sole designator and the Decisional Participants are the entities that participate.  Is that right?

Ed: We could have a Decisional Participant working outside of the EC, such as a document request under inspection rights.

Steve B.: There are Advisory Committees [SSAC & RSSAC] that are outside of the EC and they don't have the right of inspection.

David: I have heard nothing that would support a departure from the default role [GNSO Council deciding for the GNSO].

Steve D.: The majority of participants on the last call were in favor of moving away from a split House for nominations.

David: Maintaining the principle of each House is paramount.  There must still be a voting rule attached to each House.

Matthew: We seem to be jumping into the exceptions to the default rule.

Steve D.: The default rule is already baked into the Bylaws.

Steve M.: 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.

Farzi: Question re: NCA -- do they bring more balance to the decision?

Steve D.: Balance would be for NCPH and CPH to have equal votes.

Ed: From talking to people I’m not getting consensus on what the NCAs are supposed to do.

David: I agree that the function of NCA is an open question.

Steve M.: One element of accountability is the power to hire and fire.  No group of GNSO can divest the NCA, so they are unaccountable.

Ed: The Council also cannot divest a current member of the Council.  NCAs are accountable to the GNSO or to the NomCom.

Steve D.: We have divided views on NCA role and having them vote.  Look at the test cases [see attached Excel document “Council Votes”] -- you could achieve a majority of Councilors (without NCAs) in several scenarios.

Steve M.: One way to look at it might be to say how would the results be different as compared to the status quo?  Test D: 58.3% "Yes" votes.  Would not have a majority in each house.  Same as Test E -- 10/2.

Darcy: This is under the current structure.  What happens if there are new Constituencies/SGs?

Steve B.: Relevant, but not necessarily to this work.

Darcy: Disagree that it's not relevant.

Ed: As long as we keep the balance of power I am not opposed to not following the house structure for votes related to the EC.

Steve M.: Darcy is right.  If there are new SGs and Cs that could scramble things.

Ed: I could live with a voting threshold model for votes within Council on EC decisions.

David:  I think we are overlooking the way the Council votes in different scenarios, looking at the threshold table, such as the GNSO Guidance Process.  We need the fundamental fairness of the House structure.

Steve D.: The GGP preserves the House structure. 

2. Next Steps:

Discussion Notes:

Steve D.: We need to start writing.   I will work with staff for a draft report in the next few days.  We will need to discuss the report for two calls.  Could be hard to get consensus.  How many want to propose something other than a majority of each house?

Steve M.: You have majority of each House or GNSO supermajority.  Look at the test cases or the House structure.

Steve D.: Here is our plan: Review the report on the next call.  Determine how close to consensus we are.  A description of the table would be in the report.  We expect it could be a 4-5-page report.  The goal to get it to you prior to next Wednesdays call.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160920/11ab4fea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Bylaws DT report - Draft v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 988019 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160920/11ab4fea/GNSOBylawsDTreport-Draftv1-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Bylaws DT report - Draft v1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 234982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160920/11ab4fea/GNSOBylawsDTreport-Draftv1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160920/11ab4fea/smime-0001.p7s>