[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 07:45:58 UTC 2016
Dear Steve,
May I ask that you clarify in the report that the addition is solely your
opinion and not that of the drafting team? At the moment it is worded like
a solution by the drafting team. I have made some edits in the document.
Best
Farzaneh
On 28 September 2016 at 03:50, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:
> Ed, you are welcome to mark up my edits as you wish and that can provide a
> basis for discussion Thursday. I am not going to withdraw any edits.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: *Edward Morris [egmorris1 at toast.net]
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 27, 2016 06:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> *To: *matthew shears; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org; Metalitz, Steven
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT
> (v2)
>
> Steve,
>
> My understanding is that this document is supposed to reflect past
> proceedings of this group. Some of your edits, including that highlighted
> by Matt, do not.
>
> If we are editing this document to reflect the approach we individually
> would like to take going forward then you can expect a complete edit by
> myself prior to the meeting on Thursday. I will remove past nomenclature
> that received only minority support and include only that which received
> majority support during our past discussions.
>
> I would suggest that you remove your edits that do not reflect past
> proceedings and resubmit your new ideas in the form of policy proposals, as
> I did prior to our last meeting. If not, everyone can expect to receive a
> document from me reflecting solely the majority positions as captured by
> straw polls through past meetings, as well a description of open
> issues. Minority reports, of course, will always be welcome.
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:50 AM
> *To*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <
> gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT
> (v2)
>
> That is correct Matthew. In view of the short time left I propose this as
> the best option going forward. Looking forward to discussion.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: *matthew shears [mshears at cdt.org]
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 27, 2016 04:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> *To: *Metalitz, Steven; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT
> (v2)
>
>
> Hi Steve
>
> Thanks for the additional edits. W/r/t this one:
>
> ", the Drafting Team recommends that this report be forwarded by the GNSO
> council to the constituencies and stakeholder groups making up the GNSO,
> and that these entites be asked to express, either individually or
> (preferably) collectively, their views and recommendations on the issues of
> who should speak for the GNSO with regard to the new powers, and how
> decisions should be arrived at."
>
>
>
> I assume that this is your preferred outcome of a discussion yet to be had
> as I don't recall us agreeing this way forward (to the best of my
> recollection).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 27/09/2016 22:33, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> Thank you as always for a conscientious and thoughtful job of drafting.
>
>
>
> Attached please find some suggested edits, mainly additions at the end of
> the draft (these are on top of Ed’s edits). Since we go through the
> options if the Council acquires these powers, we should also lay out at
> least briefly the alternative route. And I believe we should also stress
> that the decision on this report is not the Council’s alone, and that the
> views of the constituencies and SGs must be solicited.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to discussing on the list and on our call on Thursday.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
> *[image: image001]*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz* | *Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP* | *www.msk.com <http://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 <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of*
> matthew shears
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 10:35 PM
> *To:* gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT
> (v2)
>
>
>
> Thanks Steve for the drafting and Ed for the comments. I think these
> suggested edits add useful detail and reflect the diversity of views in the
> discussions that were had.
>
> I would also note that, at least as I understood it, there was general
> agreement some calls back that the GNSO Council was the appropriate vehicle
> for speaking for he GNSO in the EC. While there have been views to the
> contrary, it seemed to me that the majority of the group was still in favor
> of that approach. Its important that this general view is not portrayed
> differently in the report. This is reinforced by the straw poll that was
> taken and referred to later in the doc.
>
> I also believe that while some (one or two?) DT members that suggested
> that it was not "sustainable" that the Council continue to take positions
> on non-policy matters, this is not the view of most I suspect. The
> suggested implication seems to infer that the group as a whole had such
> concerns. Again, the straw poll would indicate otherwise. It is important
> that we not communicate that there is a general belief that the Council's
> role is unsustainable as that would be overstating the case.
>
> Thanks
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 25/09/2016 12:49, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this.
>
>
>
> Attached please find some suggested edits that I believe more accurately
> captures the majority view on some of the issues currently facing us.
> Hopefully between now and our next meeting we'll be able to be a bit
> creative and sort some ways of bridging at least some of the gaps between
> us.
>
>
>
> Great job of capturing the various perspectives on threshold levels. I'm
> quite optimistic and hopeful we'll be able to craft some sort of unified
> perspective on at least that portion of our work.
>
>
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> *Sent*: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:04 PM
> *To*: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org> <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject*: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)
>
>
>
> DT Team — attached is a revised draft report, reflecting what I heard on
> our last call and the additional analysis provided by staff.
>
>
>
> Please review and reply with edits before we hold our next call in the
> week ahead. (awaiting completion of the Doodle poll on the date and time)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date:* Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:26 PM
> *To:* "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT
> Meeting 21 September
>
>
>
> Dear Bylaws DT members,
>
>
>
> Per this action item -- *Staff will check to see if all references to
> GNSO accounted are for* – staff has undertaken the following analysis:
>
>
>
> First, it should be noted that the original request was for staff to
> analyze the new Bylaws for instances of the use of “Council” or “GNSO
> Council” in place of “GNSO”. That analysis was provided previous and is
> attached again for reference. Staff found 17 references.
>
>
>
> Second, the request from the meeting on 21 September is for staff to
> ensure that all references to “GNSO” in the Bylaws are accounted for. That
> analysis is attached. Staff found 209 references (excluding in the table
> of contents). Of those references, 39 were in sections that only appear in
> the new Bylaws.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *From:* <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date:* Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:45 AM
> *To:* Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, "
> gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT
> Meeting 21 September
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> Thank you for that helpful correction. I’ve made the change to the wiki.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> *Date:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:46 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org"
> <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT
> Meeting 21 September
>
>
>
> Thanks, Julie. I can correct you on the first straw poll:
>
>
>
> *Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC?*
>
>
>
> “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii,, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears,
> Darcy Southwell, Amr Elsadr
>
> “No” votes: Tony Harris, Steve Metalitz, Steve DelBianco (BC)
>
> Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:01 PM
> *To:* "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions/Discussion Notes: Bylaws DT Meeting
> 21 September
>
>
>
> Dear DT Members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting
> on 21 September. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately
> and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/
> display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_GBIDT_DT-26-2343-3BMeetings&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=LFR8_SfCGhncxEWeUA3InUiBp944jw7-FauUyUKsvCw&s=h88T8NNyFIyZ4R-lbNHnfEmoLnBN5ciTw96u05FVrho&e=>.
> In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your
> reference at: https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_yhCsAw&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=LFR8_SfCGhncxEWeUA3InUiBp944jw7-FauUyUKsvCw&s=ikB4ZTrgPK38-XxVazQpbHYT-dXZdW5mzToLscVBv3E&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at
> 1300 UTC*
>
>
>
> *1. Statements of Interest*
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced
> in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be
> helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so.
> Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from
> those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability.
>
>
>
> *2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table
> on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential
> Council voting thresholds*
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> 1. Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are
> for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the
> number (84).
>
> 2. Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the
> draft Report for the DT to review and discuss.
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> *Who* *should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the
> Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder
> groups and constituencies? *
>
>
>
> · Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page
> 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO
> Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that
> those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17
> instances that were identified, not for other instances.
>
> · Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the
> recommendations.
>
> · Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had
> majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC
> instances and others.
>
> · Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws
> includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not
> limited to, the GNSO Council.
>
> · Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws
> need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO
> in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do
> more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the
> Council does manage.
>
> · Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak
> for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC.
>
> · Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may
> not be necessary.
>
> · Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph.
>
> · Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17
> instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what
> the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended."
>
> · Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to
> policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it?
>
> · Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to
> managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for
> the GNSO.
>
>
>
> *Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for
> GNSO in new powers for EC?*
>
>
>
> “Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris,
> Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell
>
> “No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz
>
> Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree.
>
>
>
> *NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed*:
>
>
>
> · Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we
> haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles.
> There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a
> recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have
> done, such as the GNSO Review WG.
>
> · Ed Morris: Agree with Amr.
>
> · Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to
> thoroughly discuss some issues.
>
> · Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be
> realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the
> report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by
> stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this
> in notes.
>
>
>
>
>
> *How* *should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies
> arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring
> majorities in each house?*
>
>
>
> · Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7
> constituencies each with 1 vote.
>
> · Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If
> our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote
> against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing
> with other Council. Section 11.3.
>
> · David Maher: I agree with that.
>
> · Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the
> non-voting member.
>
> · Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting
> structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House.
> Doesn't include votes for the NCA.
>
> · David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme.
>
> · Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no".
>
> · Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no".
>
> · Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA
> being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am
> undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme.
>
> · Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to
> "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group
> Guidelines.
>
> · Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question.
>
> · Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support.
>
> · Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as
> we can.
>
> · Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency
> doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an
> interesting and important option.
>
> · Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right
> now.
>
> · Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time.
>
> · Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no".
>
>
>
> *Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting
> thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO*
>
>
>
> · Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants
> to agree.
>
> · Steve D.: Move into the second row.
>
> · Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection
> request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low.
>
> · Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and
> decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for
> initiating inspection requests.
>
> · Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about?
>
> · Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC,
> others.
>
> · Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a
> spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row
> of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second
> row is instruction.
>
> · Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally
> via some sort of consensus, not simple majority.
>
> · Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer
> a supermajority.
>
> · Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M.
>
>
>
> *3. Timing of Final Meeting*
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday
> the 28th and Thursday the 29th. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is
> 2000-2200 on the 29th so this time slot will be avoided.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
>
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
>
> https://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 listGnso-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
>
--
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/b54ab302/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/b54ab302/ATT00001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mark-up of draft GNSO Bylaws DT report Draft-FB.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 917594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/b54ab302/Mark-upofdraftGNSOBylawsDTreportDraft-FB-0001.docx>
More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt
mailing list