[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)
Steve DelBianco
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Thu Sep 29 15:17:16 UTC 2016
Thanks, Amr. Your edits are helpful. I, too, fail to see the relevance of the GGP. I added it only because staff brought GGP to our attention on last 2 calls, implying it might be applicable here. I guess we should discuss and dismiss GGP in our report, so it’s clear that we didn’t overlook this idea.
This DT will discuss recommendations today, and the majority will likely support the Council Voting Thresholds in the draft. That would be the DT recommendation, and the subsequent text added by Steve Metalitz would probably be termed as a Minority Report.
Talk soon.
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:04 AM
To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Updated draft report for GNSO Bylaws DT (v2)
Hi again,
I’ve attached the marked-up draft with some additions I put in, as well as a comment on the section regarding the GGP. I also have a couple of other comments I would like to make here:
1. On last week’s call, I suggested that the DT has not had the time or opportunity to go through all the issues raised in relation to this team’s mandate. Several issues remain unresolved, which I personally find to be important ones to go through thoroughly. This DT will likely not be able to do this in the time that we have. To that end, I also suggested that the DT should consider recommending that the work done by us should be picked up by another group (such as the GNSO Review WG). If I recall correctly, this suggestion was supported by a few DT members, and was captured in the notes, but doesn’t seem to have found its way into the draft report. I would have put in some marked-up language to that effect myself, but am honestly not certain where this should go…, which takes me to my next point.
2. The draft report seems more than a little confusing to me; not in terms of its content, but what it is meant to achieve. Right now, the report reads as a document that exhaustively describes the disagreements within the DT that are largely unresolved, with little to no clear direction being offered for the Council to act upon. I’m hopeful that we can change this in the little time we have left. All views (whether they are conflicting or not) should certainly be included, but we really do need to list the DT’s recommendations very clearly, and indicate the level of support that each one of them has. I do appreciate that this is likely already the plan, and that what we have is only work-in-progress, but thought it important to mention anyway.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Sep 29, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I am curious about your view on why this recommendation is constructive or adds any value. I may be missing it, but should we expect the DT, the Council or the GNSO to hear anything new if the report is forwarded to the GNSO’s SGs/Cs? I suspect that the feedback collected by each of the GNSO’s groups will pretty much reflect what the reps of each group has contributed to this DT. But like I said, I may be missing something.
>
> I’m just trying to understand the motivation behind including this recommendation.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:49 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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<http://www.good.com>)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: matthew shears [mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 04:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>> <ATT00001.gif>
>>> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
>>> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>
>>> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | 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> [mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Ofmatthew shears
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 10:35 PM
>>> To: gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:04 PM
>>> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:26 PM
>>> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:45 AM
>>> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
>>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:46 PM
>>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:01 PM
>>> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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]. In addition, please see the attached documents and on the wiki for your reference at: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<mailto: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 list
>>>
>>> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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 list
>> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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/20160929/e858cbcb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt
mailing list