[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC

Thu Oct 3 11:33:13 UTC 2019

Thank you, Ariel and Heather – and yes, I support this.

My concern is to give the Council leadership and GNSO support staff (a small group) some wiggle room if they face an excessively complex task in a very small window of time on such an important matter.

Removing a director here or there, while unusual, seems to fall more in the normal course. Spilling an entire board would be near cataclysmic and could bring forth very detailed comments – possibly infused with legal arguments – and having to summarize might be a bit much, especially where the community can go read the source material/comments themselves.

So, the approach Ariel suggests gets thumb up from me.

Best wishes,

David

David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 7:52 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC

Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved.

David - does Ariel's amendment suit?

Best wishes to all,

Heather

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:

   Hello David,

   Thank you for raising this very good point!

   Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?

   How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?

   The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to compile any comments received, and post the compilation of comments to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the compilation of comments to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the GNSO Council leadership may work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.

   If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:

   *    1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2
   *    2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2,
   *    3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2
   *    3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2
   *    3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2

   Happy to hear thoughts from others.

   Best Regards,

   Ariel

   From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>>
   Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com>>
   Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM
   To: "haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>" <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
   Cc: "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] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC

   Thank you, Heather,

   On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_policy_2019_transcript_transcript-2Dgnso-2Ddrafting-2Dteam-2D26sep-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=GJw3ite2e_IIycbUcAcjWspGQMmVOE76UnUj83GOH2s&e=> and accept that others view this differently.

   Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is entitled: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition.

   This section currently says this:

   Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period.

   The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to the GNSO website/wiki.

   While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and post summaries if reasonably doable?

   Best regards,

   David

   David McAuley

   Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

   Verisign Inc.

   703-948-4154

   From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
   Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM
   To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
   Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
   Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC

   Dear DT colleagues,

   We are scheduled to meet for one final time to discuss the 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 documents, and sign these off. As yet we have spent most of our time in 3.1, and with our supplemental call, I believe we resolved the issue of "standing" (so to speak) to make a petition to remove a board member. That means we need to cover all of the outstanding questions in 3.2. Ariel has already carried over into 3.3 (Board Recall) all of our edits developed in discussing 3.1. There appear to be no outstanding issues in 3.3; if you believe that there are outstanding issues requiring discussion in 3.3 in this week's call, please could you note this on the list prior to our call. If there are no concerns notified about 3.3, I propose to focus our time on 3.2, and specifically the outstanding queries.

   To make the call as efficient as possible, I have listed below the outstanding questions lingering in 3.2:

   3.2 SO/AC Director Removal:

   *    clause 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Suppose a petition is made, and it doesn't meet the requirements (these, as set out in 4.2.2, are pretty basic). Can another, new application be immediately submitted? Any limit on the timing between the old and new application? I personally am not convinced that this is a major issue that needs addressing, given how basic the requirements of 4.2.2 are. Note the related comment in 4.2.3 (ie, if GNSO Council leadership finds that the petition doesn't meet requirements, can applicant immediately resubmit?) Julie and David agree that immediate submission isn't appropriate. Again, I'm not convinced it's a major problem, unless we're thinking we are going to have vexatious filings.
   *    clause 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Should both Houses be invited to give feedback on the one House's director? Given that the feedback is not dispositive of the outcome, but merely to inform a decision by Council, I personally am of the view that feedback from the "other" House shouldn't be prevented. I believe the wording here ("especially for those that belong in the applicable GNSO House that appointed the affected Director") make clear that the emphasis is on affected House, and is appropriate, but no need to go further to restrict the other House from "provid[ing] feedback, opinions, or comments on the merits of the Petition."
   *    clause 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC Director Removal Petition: Since the voting requirement is at least 3/4 of the Councilors from the GNSO House that appointed the affected Director, does the entire Council need to meet for this vote? I believe that we should not set a precedent of only some Councillors meeting. The GNSO Operating Procedures make clear that we need quorum for a meeting to be held, and that's both Houses. So yes, I believe that the entire Council (both Houses) should meet. I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("The GNSO House that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a vote by the GNSO Council.") is excellent and makes good sense.
   *    clause 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal Community Forum: I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("All GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are free to participate in this Comment Period in accordance with their own internal procedures and Bylaws.") work very well to specify what goes on in the Community Forum.

   Best wishes to all as we near the finish line,

   Heather

   On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:

      Dear all,

      Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

      For a list of all draft documents including the current versions, see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.

      Draft Proposed Agenda

      1.        Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
      2.        Finalize Discussion:

      3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit# [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA-5Fhp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=oA4vyspZdbdvVAKVy-gcqYVTMekLdQ99rnS96vx8KLY&e=>

      3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc/edit#heading=h.herry8rlp3ok [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=>

            3.3 (Board Recall): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit# [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2-5FDKXHRsHrG-2DMyihPR1ePpbmamDU_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=B2KEnwLp3FPY0C5y_36DNSOs_Jr0MCvQvH7_1lnI0kQ&e=>

      3.        AOB

      Kind regards,

      Julie & 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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=0-46UJHWYBwPHYdmMPNWDP2yNK9F-bYGNbScxCCMqQs&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=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=OpIMVDWXu-mKlwh-1U9RS8jxze52eGs03sqThjn4_jo&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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20191003/0b61a29b/attachment-0001.html>