Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Heather Forrest
28:19
We conflict with a SubPro call this morning, so the extra minute is for those transitioning over... thanks, Julie
Julie Bisland
28:19
Welcome to the GNSO DRAFTING TEAM CALL on Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
28:28
Thanks Heather, you all did a great job!
Tatiana Tropina
29:12
Hi all!
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:41
none here
Ariel Liang
31:02
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnaaoWKJWUu0Cw3pphuvT0wycmMIXhQmYyy0daPmnbI/edit#heading=h.1t3h5sf
Steve DelBianco
32:38
That’s ironic but not suprising
Steve DelBianco
36:10
72 - 136 days. Was ccNSO concerned about the long timeline?
David McAuley (Verisign)
37:24
I'm ok with parking
Steve DelBianco
37:33
Me too. Let’s go to 2.2
Ariel Liang
37:56
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z9Ic/edit#
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
38:06
Now I got it: I'm fine with your suggestion
Ariel Liang
40:24
It’s an iterative process :)
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:13
seems sensible - but happy to do a final review
Steve DelBianco
41:35
appreciate “stakeholder groups AND CONSTITUENCIES"
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
41:56
+1
Julie Hedlund
42:27
Done Heather!
Ariel Liang
42:55
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYeAMR5J7a4zN2zTE4LA_hp7sLynsKIqUnQgMWccAy4/edit#
Steve DelBianco
43:15
Another 23-page document
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
45:33
I did check 3.1 only so far, sorry!
Steve DelBianco
46:48
WOlf too
Steve DelBianco
48:46
Empowered Community is AC/SOs. Even if an individual initiates, their AC/SO has to approve and submit
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
55:35
@Steve: It would be interesting to learn from you as a member of the accountability group how this was discussed there
Steve DelBianco
56:08
Even if an indiv reaches the GNSO Secretariat, it will take a councilor to make a motion
Steve DelBianco
57:07
RIght, Heather
Steve DelBianco
57:17
Agree
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
57:23
I agree, Steve. The question is how the related SG/C can intervene in the submission process
Tatiana Tropina
57:27
Heather, it does to me
Tatiana Tropina
58:39
It’s not the first time there’s a struggle with this direct submission of individual
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:34
Submitting through an SG etc will also start the clock,
Steve DelBianco
01:02:01
David — you said the Bylaws require GNSO to “consider” an indiv petition. But that still allows us to define the rules for how Council considers it.
Steve DelBianco
01:02:20
No to pass thru
Heather Forrest
01:04:15
We have an issue, though, Steve - if the petition comes directly, it has no "review" at first instance, if you like. But if it goes through SG/C, it gets reviewed by that SG/C
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:04:21
David, agreed. Timing is critical, and SGs/Cs should be fully informed about
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:28
That is an issue - what does 'individual' mean?
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:05:55
@Heather: Reviewing is good, but does it need acceptance by the SG/C?
Heather Forrest
01:08:04
Steve is right that the fact that this commences with a motion is the control
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:19
that's right Steve - in this case the GNSO acceptes or rjects petition irrespective of where the petition cam from
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:32
wow - poor typing
Heather Forrest
01:09:16
woe is us....
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:03
I think Steve is right - and the individual could probably affiliate within GNSO easily
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:15
anyway, if they wanted to
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:28
good point, Heather - these are hard discussions in a vacuum
Ariel Liang
01:13:51
there are a few steps involved in the petition process
Steve DelBianco
01:16:05
no need to describe how to re-submit. The petitioner is able to submit again.
Ariel Liang
01:16:49
Asked this question here because 2.2/2.3 permits resubmission
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:17:10
I agree with Heather and Steve - no need for resubmission.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:18:32
thanks Heather; the bylaws are above heaven...
Ariel Liang
01:18:37
good phrase Heather :)
Ariel Liang
01:19:01
I think it is meant that the community has already spoken with regard to the affected director, so the petition shouldn’t be about the same director again
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:28
And if that director acts badly after that then the board could remove
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:19:34
ok
Steve DelBianco
01:23:13
I think 15 days is plenty
Heather Forrest
01:25:04
I'm mindful that we have 2 minutes left, so after David's comment I'll need to wind us up.
Tatiana Tropina
01:25:42
+1 to David
Ariel Liang
01:26:06
Yes
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:28
all chocolate must be ahared
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:32
shared
Ariel Liang
01:26:36
I may propose removing the RSVP requirement if the dialogue must happen on Day 10 for example
Ariel Liang
01:26:44
I’m a chocoholic :)
Julie Hedlund
01:27:04
Haven’t sent it, but captured the action ;-)
Julie Hedlund
01:27:08
Sorry for the confusion!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:27:17
this is complex stuff we are into
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:27:38
It's a 23 page doc - and it's 23:59 here
Ariel Liang
01:27:55
Thanks for staying up with us!
Steve DelBianco
01:28:42
okay
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:28:47
makes sense
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:29:11
thanks to those up late
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:29:11
thanks all
Ariel Liang
01:29:18
Thanks everyone
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:29:24
bye all
Tatiana Tropina
01:29:25
thanks all! bye