<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear colleagues on the GNSO drafting team:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During yesterday’s meeting I promised to send a note to list further explaining my comment in the google-doc with respect to the timeline shown in paragraph 4.2.11 of the director removal process (in this case referring to the document
regarding NomCom director removal noted in Annex D, Section 3.1). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Specifically, I was addressing the last timeline block dealing with ‘Day 29.’ (currently on page 10 of the
<a href="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=">
google-doc</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All action-dates in the timeline are described as ‘<b>maximum dates</b>.’<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the nature of my concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this timeline we are telling the GNSO Council that the timeline may assist them in their efforts to carry out their duties with such removal petitions.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the final block (day 29) we essentially say that day 29 is the last date on which the GNSO Rep to the EC can submit a supported petition to the EC and others as indicated. I think that is a correct statement in theory, but it may prove
to be incorrect in practice as an individual petition works its way through the process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bylaw Annex D, 3.1(d)(i) says this, in part:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="color:black;background:white">(i) If the … Petitioning Decisional Participant obtains the support of at least one other Decisional Participant … during the
</span></i><span style="color:black;background:white">[relevant week]<i> …, the … Petitioning Decisional Participant shall provide a written notice to the </i></span><i>EC<span style="color:black;background:white"> Administration, the other Decisional Participants
and the Secretary … <b>within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the support </b>
of … </span></i><span style="color:black;background:white">[such]<i> Decisional Participant. …
</i>(emphasis added)</span><i><span style="background:white"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Potential supporting decisional participants have a week to make their decision. What if the issue is an easy one and they decide in two days? Then would it not be the case that the GNSO Rep will have to submit the petition by the end of
the next 24 hours – days short of day 29?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If that is the case the GNSO Council might get tripped up by confusing the ‘maximum date’ in theory with the maximum date in practice in any one case. In other words, there may b e a difference between maximum date and required date.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this is a correct reading, do we want to somehow flag this potential for earlier action in the document somehow?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Verisign Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">703-948-4154<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>