<div dir="ltr">Thanks Steve.<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>Also the link to adobe has changed. You should join via this link: <a href="https://participate.icann.org/gnso-bylaws/" target="_blank" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif;font-size:12pt">https://participate.icann.org/<wbr>gnso-<span class="gmail-il">bylaws</span>/</a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> </span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 September 2016 at 18:22, Steve DelBianco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>Attached please find a doc and PDF of the marked-up draft v2 for discussion on today’s call. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I accepted grammatical corrections and left edits by Ed, Steve, and Amr for discussion. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>—Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org" target="_blank">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:50 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda for Bylaws DT Meeting 29 September 1930 UTC<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear DT Members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Julie</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Proposed Agenda:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1. Roll call/statements of interest</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2. Review agenda</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3. DT to discuss revised draft report as sent by co-chair, with edits from Ed Morris (attached)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">5. DT to hold a consensus call on the revised draft report</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">6. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1. Statements of Interest</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Action Item:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> 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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Action Items:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1.</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2.</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Discussion Notes:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Who</span></u></b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> 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? </span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC?</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">“Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">“No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Ed Morris: Agree with Amr.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">How</span></u></b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their
decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house?</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">David Maher: I agree with that.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no".</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no".</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no".</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: Move into the second row.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">·</span><span style="font-size:6.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3. Timing of Final Meeting</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Action Item:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28</span><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri">th</span></sup><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
and Thursday the 29</span><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri">th</span></sup><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29</span><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri">th</span></sup><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
so this time slot will be avoided.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></span>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Farzaneh </div>
</div>