[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)

Wed Sep 28 18:56:28 UTC 2016

The ISPCP supports the edits/additions proposed by Steve.

Thank you

Tony Harris

Logo

Antonio Harris
Director Ejecutivo

Cámara Argentina de Internet
Suipacha 128 - 3 "F" - Tel: (5411) 5263-7456
 <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> harris at cabase.org.ar ·
<http://www.cabase.org.ar> www.cabase.org.ar

  <http://www.facebook.com/CabaseAr/> facebook
<http://twitter.com/CabaseAr> twitter
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/562172?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Ac
ompany%2CclickedEntityId%3A562172%2Cidx%3A2-1-2%2CtarId%3A1454513596509%2Cta
s%3Acabase> linkedIn 

eco No me imprimas si no es necesario. Protejamos el medio ambiente

De: gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Metalitz, Steven
Enviado el: martes, 27 de septiembre de 2016 18:33
Para: gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)

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  

image001

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation

T: 202.355.7902 |  <mailto:met at msk.com> met at msk.com

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP |  <http://www.msk.com/> 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 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"  <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
<sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:04 PM
To:  <mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org> "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org"
<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di
splay_GBIDT_DT-26-2343-3BMeetings&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6s
Jms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=LFR8_SfCGhncxEW
eUA3InUiBp944jw7-FauUyUKsvCw&s=h88T8NNyFIyZ4R-lbNHnfEmoLnBN5ciTw96u05FVrho&e
=>
https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/DT+Meetings[community.icann.org].
In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your
reference at:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
yhCsAw&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lL
wFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=LFR8_SfCGhncxEWeUA3InUiBp944jw7-FauUyUKsvC
w&s=ikB4ZTrgPK38-XxVazQpbHYT-dXZdW5mzToLscVBv3E&e=>
https://community.icann.org/x/yhCsAw[community.icann.org].

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 130826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image006-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160928/69bd6143/image007-0001.gif>