<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Steve, all</p>
<p>Related to the report I had asked a question with regards to the
implications of the following comment: <br>
</p>
<p><i>Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from
indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, <b>as they do
not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting
within the present House-bound structure</b>.</i><br>
</p>
This (my highlighting) seems to suggest that the views of the IPC,
ISPCP and BC is that GNSO Council cannot/should not exercise the
community powers until the issue of the House structure is
addressed? <br>
<br>
Could someone explain? And if that is the case are we saying that
the GNSO will not be participating as a decisional participant in
the EC until that time? (Of course I may have misunderstood but
would appreciate enlightening.)<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/10/2016 16:53, Steve DelBianco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E6524A0-5A35-4BF9-83F3-F02488C02455@netchoice.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits
to these docs. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix
and report. (thank you!)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to
meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A -
Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director. I added to the
report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div>4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets
two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these
sections:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<div> 17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require
approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which
is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section
11.3(i). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws
require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is
not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i).
Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in
the House that nominated the director, while other DT
members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision.</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later
in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are
not familiar with this DT will understand what our
recommendations are all about. That background takes only 2
inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added
Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on
why Council speaks for GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With
those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete
discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy
matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an
essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion.
Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call
transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to
describe what was considered (and rejected). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on
page 7.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members
abstaining, but this is essential to understand that
recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to
explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the
recommendations, in my view. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting
these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting
on Thursday. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">So, please
indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today.</span> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks again for your serious attention to this project.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>—Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987</pre>
</body>
</html>