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

[McAuley, David]

Hello Heather,



In my view, your parenthetical note is exactly right and will help avoid any misunderstanding.



Best regards,

David



David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154



From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 10:44 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com>; gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Director removal timeline-block comment



Dear David, Wolf-Ulrich, all,



I can definitely see David's point here. I have added some explanatory language in parentheses in the document: (Note: Annex D, Section 3.1(d)(i) of the ICANN Bylaws requires that the Supported Petition be submitted within 24 hours of receipt. Day 29 is thus the absolute latest for submission, but if a Supported Petition is received prior to Day 28, it must be submitted within 24 hours of the date of receipt.)



Will this work?



Best wishes,



Heather



On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 4:06 PM Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>> wrote:

   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<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<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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20190923/d8f7d696/attachment-0001.html>