[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC

Wed Oct 2 23:52:23 UTC 2019

Ariel, your suggested approach seems sensible to me, and seems to address
David's concern whilst also being mindful of the tight timelines involved.

David - does Ariel's amendment suit?

Best wishes to all,

Heather

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello David,
>
>
>
> Thank you for raising this very good point!
>
>
>
> Perhaps we can require only the “compilation” of any comments received? If
> feasible and time permits, a summary of those comments will be produced?
>
>
>
> How about revising the second paragraph of 4.2.4 as follows?
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to *compile
> *any comments received, and post the *compilation of comments* to the
> GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the *compilation
> of comments* to the GNSO website/wiki. If feasible and time permits, the
> GNSO Council leadership *may* work with GNSO support staff to categorize
> and summarize these comments to facilitate the review by the GNSO Council.
>
>
>
> If the DT is okay to adopt this revision, the same/similar language should
> be applied to other relevant sections/guidelines for consistency reason:
>
>    - 1.3/1.4 – Section 4.3.2
>    - 2.2/2.3 – Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 5.2.2,
>    - 3.1 – Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.2.2
>    - 3.2 – Sections 4.2.5, 5.2.2
>    - 3.3 – Section 4.3.3, 5.2.2
>
>
>
> Happy to hear thoughts from others.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *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: *Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM
> *To: *"haforrestesq at gmail.com" <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team Meeting 02
> October at 21:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Thank you, Heather,
>
>
>
> On 3.3, specifically with respect to the language in section 4.1 about
> various transmittal options for a petition, I think we need to move on. I
> made my minority views clear on pages 14-15 of last week’s transcript
> [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_policy_2019_transcript_transcript-2Dgnso-2Ddrafting-2Dteam-2D26sep-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=GJw3ite2e_IIycbUcAcjWspGQMmVOE76UnUj83GOH2s&e=>
> and accept that others view this differently.
>
>
>
> Otherwise on 3.3, I have one question regarding section 4.2.4 which is
> entitled: *GNSO Community Feedback on Certified Board Recall Petition*.
>
>
>
> This section currently says this:
>
>
>
> *Upon publication of a certified Petition, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
> Constituencies will be asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on
> the merits of the Petition. This feedback period will close on the
> fifteenth (15th) day into the Petition Period. *
>
>
>
> *The GNSO Council leadership will work with GNSO support staff to
> categorize and summarize any comments received, and post the summary to the
> GNSO Council list. The GNSO Secretariat will promptly post the summary to
> the GNSO website/wiki.*
>
>
>
> While the number of feedback documents will be small, the comments
> themselves might be extensive and/or complex – almost like legal briefs
> possibly. Why not post the feedback documents themselves and then task the
> GNSO Council leadership and support staff with endeavoring to summarize and
> post summaries if reasonably doable?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Heather
> Forrest
> *Sent:* Monday, September 30, 2019 11:35 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Proposed Agenda: Drafting Team
> Meeting 02 October at 21:00 UTC
>
>
>
> 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.
>    - 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."
>    - 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.
>    - 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.
>
>
>
> 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>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please see the following proposed agenda for the Drafting Team meeting on *Wednesday,
> 02 October at 21:00 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=>
>
>    1. AOB
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie & Ariel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=0-46UJHWYBwPHYdmMPNWDP2yNK9F-bYGNbScxCCMqQs&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=UI0KkCQIAUCbR4A1vZH42urcweHYWoKlM8s4QmB2lQA&s=OpIMVDWXu-mKlwh-1U9RS8jxze52eGs03sqThjn4_jo&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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20191003/1002468b/attachment-0001.html>