[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Meeting with ccNSO GRC tomorrow - thoughts on questions

Mon Jul 15 10:18:12 UTC 2019

Agreed! Huge thanks, David.

Looking forward to catching up with you all (and the GRC) in 2 hours.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:58 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> Many thanks for your very helpful suggestions on the questions.  Your
> unique perspective is quite valuable.
>
> Kind regards,
> Julie
>
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> this is very helpful, given you are already familiar with ccNSO
> discussions of this topic.
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for putting this advice together for us.
>
>
>
>
>
> *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: *David McAuley <dmcauley at Verisign.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 4:23 PM
> *To: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Meeting with ccNSO GRC tomorrow - thoughts on
> questions
>
>
>
> Dear Heather and members of the GNSO drafting team,
>
>
>
> In preparing for the call tomorrow with the ccNSO Guidelines Review
> Committee, I’d like to note my suggestions on the questions we will be
> looking at tomorrow, given my unique perspective as a member of both teams.
>
>
>
> Here are the questions, followed by my recommendations in red-italics:
>
>
>
>    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.)
>
> a.                   Question: Do we agree? What do we think?
>
> *It seems like a sensible suggestion to me. The Board will take at least a
> little time to react and with this joint guideline the SICT ought to be
> able to get prepared. It might make sense, however, for both Councils (when
> they adopt this guideline) to create an annual reminder on their agendas of
> what a SICT is and whom they might consider as likely candidates should the
> need arise.  *
>
>
>
>    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.
>
>   a. Question: Can we clarify how this process works?
>
> b. 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?)
>
>
>
> *Paragraph 5.3 currently says this in part: ‘The GNSO and ccNSO shall
> jointly release a statement through the SICT that they are initiating a
> Joint Consultation …’*
>
>
>
> *That sounds to me as if there is just one statement and it comes from
> SICT. Maybe SICT can sign off on such a statement and then below its
> signature could be approval signature-blocks for ccNSO and GNSO. *
>
>
>
> *On timing, I think a ‘dry-run’-through makes good sense. But I also
> suggest that we consider an overarching timing-paragraph along these lines:*
>
>
>
> *Flexible construction of time periods within this document:*
>
>
>
> *Each time period specified in this document within which any decision or
> other action must be made shall be understood as being a ‘not-greater-than’
> time period, it being understood that in all instances, as well as
> cumulatively, the individual or group (e.g. Council Chair or SICT) having
> to decide or act shall decide or act so as to remain within the times
> specified under the ICANN Bylaws(including the Annexes to such Bylaws). *
>
>
>
>    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?
>
> *This also seems sensible – and maybe a good division would be to assign
> duties in 5.4 and 5.6 to SICT, and those in 5.5 to Councils. *
>
>
>
>    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?
>
> *This seems wise, at least for the SICT (assume that Councils will remain
> abreast of developments in other avenues) – maybe a sentence at the end of
> section 5.2 along these lines:*
>
>
>
> *In addition, the SICT shall take steps to remain informed of developments
> at resolving the PTI Performance Issue(s) by other means and shall consider
> such developments as they may reasonably influence the work of the SICT
> without jeopardizing the SICT’s ability to remain within the timeline(s)
> specified by the Bylaws (including Annexes to the Bylaws).   *
>
>
>
>    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].)
>
> *This seems sensible, but I would like to hear a bit more from Bart about
> what this might look like. *
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=kl0tNYojHslwzJH13OQswW8TTuoFCXtkgqKoCbHNj58&s=Su3I-RqFxghv_2Y-zpbPVr94leRmT_sVns_ngBI6m5c&e=
> ) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=kl0tNYojHslwzJH13OQswW8TTuoFCXtkgqKoCbHNj58&s=uym4uJM9pqIKiK1yp6Kozjdhy1e7mTqHCjOnla2jDb8&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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190715/fdca512f/attachment.html>