[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Joint GRC/DT Meeting re: ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special IFRs

Wed Jul 3 02:00:10 UTC 2019

Thanks very much to all. Monday 15 July will be Tuesday 16th my time - it's
a busy morning for me, but I'll do whatever I can to make it work.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:24 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear David and all,
>
>
>
> After a staff discussion with Katrina and Heather at ICANN65 it is
> suggested that the joint GRC/DT meeting could be held on Monday, 15 July.
> Staff will confirm the time and will send an invitation.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM
> *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com>, "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org"
> <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"ccnso-grc at icann.org" <ccnso-grc at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on
> Special IFRs
>
>
>
> Dear David,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for passing on these very helpful comments and
> questions from the GRC.  Staff will take the action to schedule a joint
> GRC/DT meeting as soon as possible following ICANN65, noting that we do not
> schedule meetings the week immediately following an ICANN meeting, so the
> soonest would be the week of 07 July.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> "McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 8:07 AM
> *To: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"ccnso-grc at icann.org" <ccnso-grc at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] ccNSO GRC questions re: consulting on Special
> IFRs
>
>
>
> Dear Heather and fellow members of the GNSO Drafting Team:
>
>
>
> At the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) meeting on Monday, June 17,
> some questions/comments came up with respect to the draft *Guidelines for
> GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR* document
> [bit.ly]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2KXUOMr&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=J4fIptoHzDWaABRUbLvMqZNBoYO-2Qa4daPs0YbDgh8&s=QbpKPs3BRIsEG3hGO4DqaCnWVHJ4md-uoFmdrofi9yE&e=>
> we have been discussing. (FYI, I am a participant in the GRC as well as in
> this GNSO team.)
>
>
>
> I will summarize those questions/comments here to help us discuss. In
> addition, I told the GRC that we believe another joint meeting of GRC and
> this team will help us close work on this document. We should think about
> scheduling that – and it is my hope that this summary will help us focus on
> the GRC concerns so that we may be able to address these with the GRC in
> fairly short order when we meet.
>
>
>
> Here are the questions/comments the GRC noted during the June 17th meeting:
>
>
>
>    1. We envision the creation of a GNSO-ccNSO Special IFR Initiation
>    Coordination Team (*SICT*) – see paragraph 5.2. We say that as soon as
>    the CSC informs the ccNSO and GNSO Councils about a performance issue as
>    defined in the CSC Remedial Action Procedure, the two Councils shall as
>    soon as possible each appoint three (3) members including the Chairs to the
>    SICT. Well, these CSC procedures involve going first to the PTI Board, then
>    the ICANN CEO, and then to the ICANN Board. The GRC wonders when
>    specifically should the SICT be established and they suggest that it not be
>    until the ICANN Board is engaged in the matter. (Note – The CSC will inform
>    the Councils of every escalation step in the RAP.)
>
>
>
>    1. Question: Do we agree? What do we think?
>
>
>
>    1. In reading through paragraph 5.3, the GRC was not quite sure
>    whether the respective Councils would have to make one joint statement or
>    two – and how the interplay takes place between posting input on the
>    various websites and jointly releasing a statement through the SICT.
>
>
>
>    1. Question: Can we clarify how this process works?
>       2. Related question: Can we two groups jointly map out the timeline
>       of the SICT to test its viability? (For instance, we allow up to 30 days
>       for input from SOs and ACs (see last sentence of paragraph 4.4) and then
>       perhaps allow for the time needed for public comment – will these time
>       periods work?)
>
>
>
>    1. For the work and deliberations involved in paragraphs 5.4 through
>    5.6 (this is a considerable amount of work) the document places most of the
>    onus on the SICT. THE GRC wonders if this is too much to load onto the SICT
>    and whether some of this should be shifted to the respective Councils – and
>    what that balance would look like in a bit more detail. Moreover, given the
>    ramifications of the decisions involved which decision should be on the
>    plate of the full Councils and which on the plate of the coordination team?
>
>
>
>    1. Question: What do we think?
>
>
>
>    1. With respect to considerations of a Special IFR itself, the GRC
>    noted that other avenues exist through which to address PTI issues – for
>    instance (1) possible removal of director(s) and (2) the ability to bring
>    an IRP relating to PTI service complaints and/or ICANN’s failure to enforce
>    its rights under the IANA Naming Functions Contract – and mediation is also
>    available.
>
>
>
>    1. Question: Should this document note the fact that Councils will
>       possibly be looking at alternative courses of action and thus we should be
>       careful to check on that possibility to factor it into our calculations?
>
>
>
>    1. Finally, the document should perhaps make reference to ongoing
>    steps by CSC to resolve the issue. What happens if the PTI/IANA issue is
>    resolved along the way – should we address closing down the SIFR and SICT.
>    (Note – once the CSC informs the Councils at the end of the RAP the role of
>    the CSC is very limited – see the RAP process [icann.org]
>    <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_csc-2Dremedial-2Daction-2Dprocedures-2D19feb19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=tUtS7m-JUxApMefTA-tx6ZrWo-aozx7FEFckQ-LUJFg&s=DIpp1vLnjJrHjA1eO6dqbtpeJZ9KjakYSwjFDfI9yYw&e=>
>    .)
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190703/4bee90a5/attachment-0001.html>