[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Wed Oct 2 20:48:46 UTC 2019
All,
see comments inserted.
Looking forward for the discussion.
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 01.10.2019 um 05:35 schrieb Heather Forrest:
> Dear DT colleagues,
>
> We are scheduled to meet for one final time to discuss the 3.1, 3.2
> and 3.3 documents, and sign these off. As yet we have spent most of
> our time in 3.1, and with our supplemental call, I believe we resolved
> the issue of "standing" (so to speak) to make a petition to remove a
> board member. That means we need to cover all of the outstanding
> questions in 3.2. Ariel has already carried over into 3.3 (Board
> Recall) all of our edits developed in discussing 3.1. There appear to
> be no outstanding issues in 3.3; if you believe that there are
> outstanding issues requiring discussion in 3.3 in this week's call,
> please could you note this on the list prior to our call. If there are
> no concerns notified about 3.3, I propose to focus our time on 3.2,
> and specifically the outstanding queries.
>
> To make the call as efficient as possible, I have listed below the
> outstanding questions lingering in 3.2:
>
> 3.2 SO/AC Director Removal:
>
> * clause 4.2.2 Requirements for an SO/AC Director Removal Petition:
> Suppose a petition is made, and it doesn't meet the requirements
> (these, as set out in 4.2.2, are pretty basic). Can another, new
> application be immediately submitted? Any limit on the timing
> between the old and new application? I personally am not convinced
> that this is a major issue that needs addressing, given how basic
> the requirements of 4.2.2 are. Note the related comment in 4.2.3
> (ie, if GNSO Council leadership finds that the petition doesn't
> meet requirements, can applicant immediately resubmit?) Julie and
> David agree that immediate submission isn't appropriate. Again,
> I'm not convinced it's a major problem, unless we're thinking we
> are going to have vexatious filings.
>
WUK: agree with Julie and David
>
> * clause 4.2.5: GNSO Community Feedback on Certified SO/AC Director
> Removal Petition: Should both Houses be invited to give feedback
> on the one House's director? Given that the feedback is not
> dispositive of the outcome, but merely to inform a decision by
> Council, I personally am of the view that feedback from the
> "other" House shouldn't be prevented. I believe the wording here
> ("especially for those that belong in the applicable GNSO House
> that appointed the affected Director") make clear that the
> emphasis is on affected House, and is appropriate, but no need to
> go further to restrict the other House from "provid[ing] feedback,
> opinions, or comments on the merits of the Petition."
>
WUK: agree
>
> * clause 4.2.6 GNSO Council Decision on Whether to Accept an SO/AC
> Director Removal Petition: Since the voting requirement is at
> least 3/4 of the Councilors from the GNSO House that appointed the
> affected Director, does the entire Council need to meet for this
> vote? I believe that we should not set a precedent of only some
> Councillors meeting. The GNSO Operating Procedures make clear that
> we need quorum for a meeting to be held, and that's both Houses.
> So yes, I believe that the entire Council (both Houses) should
> meet. I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("The GNSO House
> that appointed the affected Director shall submit the motion for a
> vote by the GNSO Council.") is excellent and makes good sense.
>
WUK: in case the petition is submitted by somebody from the other house
- or from elsewhere - could you imagine how enthusiastically the motion
would be drafted? Shouldn't it be a task for the council leadership?
>
> * clause 5.2.2 GNSO Community Feedback After SO/AC Director Removal
> Community Forum: I believe that Ariel's added text in red ("All
> GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are free to participate
> in this Comment Period in accordance with their own internal
> procedures and Bylaws.") work very well to specify what goes on in
> the Community Forum.
>
WUK: agree
>
> Best wishes to all as we near the finish line,
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team
> meeting on *Wednesday, 02 October at21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.*
>
> For a list of all draft documents including the current versions,
> see the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines.
>
> Draft Proposed Agenda
>
> 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
> 2. Finalize Discussion:
>
> *3.1 (Nominating Committee Director Removal):
> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit#
> [docs.google.com]
> <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=>
>
> *3.2 (SO/AC Director Removal):
> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc/edit#heading=h.herry8rlp3ok
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1T5AUnP-2DegEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc_edit-23heading-3Dh.herry8rlp3ok&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=3O8g_14UBg0BSBppl4uEHhQr8DC8zChuzxHHDsB3jLU&e=>
>
> * 3.3 (Board Recall):
> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2_DKXHRsHrG-MyihPR1ePpbmamDU/edit#
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1fSv0ELSGLmaABoz2-5FDKXHRsHrG-2DMyihPR1ePpbmamDU_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=juxHsQ3WGX9g1l41cWOd7Ia02L5jVQD3LvwM7Bkxz_Q&s=B2KEnwLp3FPY0C5y_36DNSOs_Jr0MCvQvH7_1lnI0kQ&e=>
>
> 3. AOB
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie & Ariel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org <mailto: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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191002/edc0845b/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt
mailing list