[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September 1930 UTC

Thu Sep 29 16:32:14 UTC 2016

Thanks Steve.

Just to correct a minor mistake in the title of the initial email to avoid
confusion: The meeting is going to be today at 17.30 UTC and not 19.30 UTC.

Also the link to adobe has changed. You should join via this link:
https://participate.icann.org/gnso-bylaws/

On 29 September 2016 at 18:22, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

> Attached please find a doc and PDF of the marked-up draft v2 for
> discussion on today’s call.
>
> I accepted grammatical corrections and left edits by Ed, Steve, and Amr
> for discussion.
>
> I added a framework on page 7 for us to work towards our actual
> recommendation, per agenda item 4.  This is the main focus of our call
> today.
>
> —Steve
>
>
> From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:50 PM
> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 29
> September 1930 UTC
>
> Dear DT Members,
>
>
>
> Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our
> meeting on Thursday, 29 September at 1730 UTC for 90 minutes.  A meeting
> notice has been sent separately.  Please also see the attached revised
> 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 revised draft report as sent by co-chair, with edits
> from Ed Morris (attached)
>
> 4.  DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for
> nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws
>
> 5.  DT to hold a consensus call on the revised draft report
>
> 6.  Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council
>
>
>
> *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
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20160929/33a67dc1/attachment-0001.html>