[Gnso-bylaws-dt] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Guidelines for Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Sat Nov 2 02:16:01 UTC 2019
Thanks very much Julie and Ariel! This is very helpful.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 01.11.2019 um 17:49 schrieb Ariel Liang:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Per Heather’s email point 4, please find the slide deck that provides
> an overview of all the guidelines that the DT has developed. It
> includes graphics of the Empowered Community powers, high level
> procedure of each of the guideline, and some key points that
> differentiate them from one another.
>
> You are welcome to use this slide deck for your presentation/briefing
> about the Bylaws DT’s work at ICANN66, if applicable. Both PPT and PDF
> versions of the slide deck are attached.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Julie & Ariel
>
> *From: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:31 AM
> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Final Call: Guidelines for Joint
> Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR
>
> Dear DT colleagues,
>
> A quick report/update/reminder, as I'm conscious of email (not to
> mention document) fatigue:
>
> 1. I provided an update to the GNSO Council in its October meeting
> yesterday on the package of Guidelines and Motion Templates we have
> prepared. Councillors have access to all documents except the 18.12
> Guideline (which incorporates the Joint Consultation process, as
> discussed in the email chain below). There were no major queries. GNSO
> Chair Keith Drazek profusely thanked the DT for all of its hard work.
>
> 2. Don't forget to review the final proposed 18.12 Guideline mentioned
> in the email chain below by the end of today (Friday). Thanks very
> much to Maxim, whose minor grammatical edits appear in the document.
> If you run out of time, there is still an opportunity to flag issues
> with your respective GNSO Councillors, who can post issues on the
> Council list and discuss in Montreal.
>
> 3. Unless there are clearly articulated objections, staff and I will
> submit the 18.12 document and a draft motion to Council this Sunday
> for the Montreal meeting document deadline. Recall that ICANN legal is
> still reviewing; any issues that they or any DT member spots between
> now and Council's vote in Montreal will be addressed.
>
> 4. Please consider adding to your respective SG/C agendas a briefing
> on the DT's work for the upcoming GNSO Council vote in Montreal.
> Julie, Ariel and I are developing a slide deck based on the slides I
> used to update Council yesterday. If you would like me to join you to
> help brief your SG/C, I'll be very happy to do that - just let me
> know. Ariel and Julie will flag the slides to your attention when they
> land in our inboxes next week.
>
> 5. Last but not least, a celebration of the Annex D survivors' club -
> if you are in Montreal on Saturday night and would like to get
> together to collectively drown our sorrows over the complexity of
> Annex D, Ariel, Julie and I will be propping up seats at the
> Intercontinental Hotel bar at approx 7pm.
>
> With best wishes and thanks for being such amazing colleagues
> throughout this arduous but tremendously worthwhile effort,
>
> Heather
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Heather Forrest
> <haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Huge thanks to Ariel for taking the lead on finalising the Joint
> Consultation Guidelines.
>
> For those who were unable to attend the call on Monday with the
> ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, I took away from that meeting
> that we were all comfortable with the substance of the Joint
> Consultation Guidelines. The call mainly focused on the next steps
> and logistics, and in particular whether and how there would be
> some sort of symbolic joint signing in Montreal by the two
> Councils. What did come to me as a surprise was that the ccNSO
> potentially may not vote on this in Montreal - only a surprise to
> me because it was Katrina and Bart who had, months ago, proposed
> the timeline, and that's what we in the DT have been working to since.
>
> After follow-up conversations with Ariel, Julie and the GNSO
> Council leadership team, I feel quite comfortable in proposing
> that the DT remains on track to submit both the Joint Consultation
> Guideline and the GNSO-specific guideline of which the Joint
> Consultation Guideline is a part in time for the Montreal Council
> meeting document deadline. That deadline is this Sunday 2359 UTC.
>
> You may recall that David was initially tasked during our final
> review efforts to look over 18.12 - he did so, raised a few
> queries to the DT list, but then suggested that it be parked for
> yet one more final review once the Joint Consultation Guidelines
> were completed. David's queries have since been addressed by
> Ariel's revisions, and in the meantime she is proposing some
> further revisions to actually de-complicate the process. When we
> first started our work, we agreed to try out using the GNSO Input
> Process (the "GIP") as a vehicle for the GNSO to weigh in on the
> triggering events of a Special IFR. As we have learned along the
> way, and come to better understand 18.12 and the Joint
> Consultation Guidelines, it seems to me on careful discussion with
> Ariel and Julie (and David, whose questions in final review quite
> rightly provoked further consideration) that the GIP, which relies
> on a Council member filing a request for action, isn't actually
> what we need for 18.12, because the triggering event for 18.12
> isn't a request from a Councillor, but rather the Bylaws
> themselves and the escalation and failure to resolve a performance
> issue under the IANA contract. No "request" from a Councillor is
> needed to kick off the GNSO's provision of input. That said, there
> are some very useful things in the GIP, once one leaves aside the
> need for making a request, such as forming a small team, the team
> preparing a report for Council's consideration, etc, that serve
> this process well and do not conflict with the Bylaws 18.12
> provisions.
>
> I note for the record David's earlier remarks on the substance and
> interpretation of 18.12(a)(i)-(iv) and their relationship to 18.3
> and a regular IFRT. I am not convinced that we can resolve the
> possible differences in interpretation of these provisions until
> the event actually occurs (hopefully never), but I also take
> comfort in the fact that ICANN Legal is reviewing each Guideline,
> and to the extent that we have made a material error in judgment,
> we hope that can be pointed out to us. Further, I take comfort in
> the fact that each of these Guidelines is just that -a Guideline,
> not a compulsory rule imposed on the GNSO Council. If
> circumstances require or warrant a different course of action or
> timeline, Council has full freedom to be nimble.
>
> I am mindful that the timing is now tight, and that we are all
> rather exhausted (mentally, physically) by the enormous work
> effort we have sustained in the DT since early this year. I
> personally believe that the edits that Ariel will circulate to the
> GNSO Guideline are uncontroversial, but I very much welcome
> everyone on the DT to review. Remember that ICANN Legal is also
> reviewing in the background, and will raise any concerns if these
> arise. If we believe that more time is needed beyond this Friday
> to finalise this last document, I can advise Council and the ccNSO
> and we'll hold 18.12 back until Council's December meeting. Once
> Ariel circulates the final proposed 18.12 Guideline, I will ask
> that each DT member state by Friday their position - can be
> one-on-one to me or to the group, as each prefers. The options
> will be to sign-off on the Guideline and submit to Council or hold
> back for more time for a further review and discussion.
>
> Very best wishes,
>
> Heather
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org
> <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Following the meeting with the ccNSO GRC on Monday, staff have
> resolved the edits and comments on the Guidelines for Joint
> Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPmnbI/edit?usp=sharing
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPmnbI_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=vOIV4zqqkBHfRmvzHddTi6Mh6p0jbfIS6k0QaSHLJ6M&s=Gs0tCfnSv03YBbuk648C10-BZo-iuLzsRoEf6vzQ7DI&e=>.
>
>
> There have been no substantive changes on this document, so
> please provide your final review by *_COB Friday, 25
> October_*. The aim is to incorporate this document in the
> whole package of guidelines for the GNSO Council to adopt at
> ICANN66.
>
> In addition, staff are in process revising the GNSO internal
> guidelines for Section 18.12, as we have realized that the GIP
> may be an ‘overkill’ in the process and has been overtaken by
> events. More details will be provided when we circulate the
> revised guidelines tomorrow.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Ariel
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
> to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=vOIV4zqqkBHfRmvzHddTi6Mh6p0jbfIS6k0QaSHLJ6M&s=lThhv2QzUZ7uT3csr_-t60pWw4JjT2RzOd3JV0mU5SM&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=vOIV4zqqkBHfRmvzHddTi6Mh6p0jbfIS6k0QaSHLJ6M&s=kYLmxd8fyhB9-C4QArsNf0AcHfALJb5KSGan3Ps9HvM&e=>).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership
> status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting
> digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g.,
> for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20191101/af96feb1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt
mailing list