[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Director removal timeline-block comment

[Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben]

David, you're right. The other DP has to provide its decision on Day 28 
*the latest*. Why not to leave it up to the GNSO Council to make use of 
the full remaining time available which could be >24 hours?

So we should find an appropriate wording covering this - maybe relative 
to the official kick-off of the petition process?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


Am 19.09.2019 um 14:49 schrieb McAuley, David via Gnso-bylaws-dt:
>
> Dear colleagues on the GNSO drafting team:
>
> 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).
>
> Specifically, I was addressing the last timeline block dealing with 
> ‘Day 29.’ (currently on page 10 of the google-doc 
> <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=>)
>
> All action-dates in the timeline are described as ‘*maximum dates*.’
>
> Here is the nature of my concern.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Bylaw Annex D, 3.1(d)(i) says this, in part:
>
> //
>
> /(i) If the … Petitioning Decisional Participant obtains the support 
> of at least one other Decisional Participant … during the /[relevant 
> week]/…, the … Petitioning Decisional Participant shall provide a 
> written notice to the //EC Administration, the other Decisional 
> Participants and the Secretary … *within twenty-four (24) hours of 
> receiving the support * of … /[such]/Decisional Participant. … 
> /(emphasis added)//
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> If this is a correct reading, do we want to somehow flag this 
> potential for earlier action in the document somehow?
>
> 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/20190920/404cfa37/attachment.html>