Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Tatiana Tropina
37:33
I am sorry, it seems that I have sound problems - going to reboot and join again
Andrea Glandon
38:18
Thank you, Tatiana
Andrea Glandon
38:26
If you need a dial out, please let me know
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:32
sorting sound
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:43
sometimes zoom is so frustrating
Andrea Glandon
38:56
David, Please let me know if I can do anything to assist
David McAuley (Verisign)
39:21
Andrea - how to hear on compyer while phone is on as well?
Andrea Glandon
39:46
go to the bottom, where your mic is
Andrea Glandon
39:54
You can connect the mic through the computer there
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:28
yes - in now
Andrea Glandon
40:32
It appears that your phone mic is connected, are you able to hear through that?
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:37
Thanks Andrea
Andrea Glandon
40:41
You’re welcome!
tatianatropina
40:53
I am back, hi all
Andrea Glandon
41:03
Welcome, Tatiana
Ariel Liang
41:08
1.3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1walBGVlK4C2eIq_Gj4DWYxkjxE_k8u718iXIySdayVQ/edit
tatianatropina
41:14
thanks, Andrea!
Andrea Glandon
41:27
You’re welcome!
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:42
none here
Mary Wong
44:58
You may want to note this part of Annex D: “any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee (including Decisional Participants) may deliver to the EC Administration in writing its views and questions on the Approval Action prior to the convening of and during the Approval Action Community Forum”.
Heather Forrest
45:04
I'm concerned that the input needs to come under the Bylaws from the SO... the GNSO is made up of SGs/Cs
Mary Wong
45:33
And “ each Decisional Participant shall inform the EC Administration in writing as to whether such Decisional Participant (i) supports such Approval Action, (ii) objects to such Approval Action or (iii) has determined to abstain".
Mary Wong
47:32
Unlike Rejection Actions, the Bylaws/Annex D do not specifically mention “individuals”; though of course there is nothing to prevent a Decisional Participant from expressly including a requirement within its own procedures about receiving indivdual views. It’s just not a requirement (unlike Rejection Petitions).
tatianatropina
48:15
I am fine with this as it is, I read it as “GNSO community” which is SGs and Cs.
David McAuley (Verisign)
48:21
agree with Mary
David McAuley (Verisign)
48:52
and I think reference to individuals in rejection actions is subject to interpretation
Ariel Liang
49:12
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-FNo2qm0Ohc6osJJ20sud1O5yDg9xv1v5Ux0n9Z9Ic/edit
Ariel Liang
51:03
Introduction paragraph is pretty much consistent for all these documents, so we will use the same final version
julie.hedlund
51:05
@Heather — we can check that and make that change in all of the docs.
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:07
this change ok with me
Mary Wong
51:45
@David, yeah. As to “individuals”, while the Bylaws/Annex D are clear that each Decisional Participant MUST have a process to accept individual petitions, they do not specify who or how (including whether that individual must be a member of that Decisional Participant or not) - those are left to each DP to determine.
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:51
no
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:04
thanks Mary, agree
julie.hedlund
52:13
Thank Mary — she pointed us to it :-)
Steve DelBianco
52:31
I first drew those steps on a big white pad at the Dublin meeting !
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:36
and 2.2(a) talks about informing their constituents
David McAuley (Verisign)
53:00
Dublin down on right to reject?
Steve DelBianco
53:53
The bylaws say “subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a "Rejection Action Petition")."
Maxim Alzoba
54:15
no individuals
Steve DelBianco
54:32
yes
Mary Wong
54:36
@Heather, yes. As long as the GNSO (in this case) allows for a process where individuals may submit petitions, there is no Bylaws requirement as to how you do it.
Heather Forrest
55:20
OK, Mary - in your view would it be helpful to specify that SG/Cs may accept petitoins from individuals?
Heather Forrest
55:36
Or not "accept" as such, but transmit to Council
Mary Wong
55:51
@Heather, I think that will be VERY prudent, and was going to put up my hand to suggest that. It’s the nuance that Wolf-Ulrich is speaking to now.
Heather Forrest
56:10
OK - let me try to suggest language and you sing out if you think I'm off track
Maxim Alzoba
56:13
it is EC process, not empowered individuals
tatianatropina
56:15
I think the SG/C should transmit it to the council at least
tatianatropina
56:30
if an individual can’t submit it themselves
Maxim Alzoba
57:08
they are free to do so, not have to (depends on charters )
David McAuley (Verisign)
58:24
sorry
Maxim Alzoba
58:28
it depends on a Constituency cjarters
David McAuley (Verisign)
58:29
no good need phone
Heather Forrest
58:46
@Mary - is my shonky drafting at least headed in the right direction?
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
58:53
Acc. to 2.2b: ...an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, ...
Mary Wong
59:37
@Heather, I think we’ll get there!
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
59:43
I agree to David
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:56
old hand
tatianatropina
01:01:45
I lowered my hand for the sake of time, but I think there is a question if SG/C has to transmit a petition of an individual in any case or may decide not to (if the go for submission via SG/C route)
Heather Forrest
01:02:12
Good point, Tatiana - I think that's something we need to work out
tatianatropina
01:02:29
Otherwise I do agree with the POV that it’s only an individual within GNSO community, not *any* individual
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:33
Tanya, I think the DP gets to decide whether an individual's petition is worth submitting
tatianatropina
01:02:51
David, got it. Thanks
Andrea Glandon
01:03:07
@David, your phone line is causing some echo. Can you mute your phone?
Heather Forrest
01:03:12
SG/C members or non-members seems to me the question
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:32
it is muted - im going to hang it up - too much hassle
Heather Forrest
01:03:34
Requires review of SG/C charters
Andrea Glandon
01:03:39
Thank you!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:02
Thank you for helping Andrea
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:04:03
Even a non-member could get support by an SG/C
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:12
we should not conflate rights of persons with obligations of SGs
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:35
please read
Andrea Glandon
01:04:41
You’re welcome, David!
Mary Wong
01:05:21
Sorry for going on a bit too long, but it’s a really critical “constitutional” right that you’re dealing with here and, like I said, it comes up again in other powers (like Director removal).
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:58
It's worth it Mary to get this right - it is quite important as yoiu noted
Steve DelBianco
01:07:05
Agree, Heather
Steve DelBianco
01:08:07
I would leave it to the GNSO Representative for all EC interaction
Steve DelBianco
01:08:49
Yes, Heather
Ariel Liang
01:09:21
I agree that it is the most straightforward way, just want to flag it to confirm with the DT :)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:26
I agree
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:36
i am too - curious like Steve
julie.hedlund
01:10:47
Not just Ariel, I thought it would be a good idea to confirm the DT’s approach.
Heather Forrest
01:10:53
I think our approach is better than ccNSO :)
Steve DelBianco
01:11:49
Exactly.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:00
I agree with Heather
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:31
exactly
Mary Wong
01:14:05
I think you need the rationale for SOME types of Rejection Action Petition Notices. Let me check.
Heather Forrest
01:14:15
Yes, Mary - thanks
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:36
we need to provide a rationale for action but not for decision to think it through
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:58
that is what we need
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:44
yes - the rationale fo the rejection but not the rationale for other steps along the way in coming to that decision
Heather Forrest
01:15:49
I think so, too, David
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:30
why do we need additional restrictions here?
Mary Wong
01:16:48
Yeah I find it unlikely that the Council will NOT include a rationale where there is one that clearly explains its decision.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:17:27
agree about drafting on the fly - we can dust this up on list
Mary Wong
01:18:05
Shall is mandatory.
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:39
may
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:45
should is exhortatory - encouraging but not requiring
Mary Wong
01:19:03
@David, I agree.
Steve DelBianco
01:21:02
Is “Council leadership” a defined term in GNSO procedures?
Steve DelBianco
01:21:19
you’re using lower case leadership
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:42
no
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:25:46
Ariel, you can copy the text from the following table
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:46
sounds good
Ariel Liang
01:27:04
Yes indeed Wolf-Ulrich
julie.hedlund
01:27:24
That seems correct.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:27:27
makes sense to me
Mary Wong
01:28:22
As long as there’s enough time to get support from another Decisional Participant during that 7 day period.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:30:56
This document is so complex, mirroring the bylaw, that we need to go through it closely again in the wake of the changes we are makimng, IMO
Heather Forrest
01:31:07
I agree, David
Mary Wong
01:31:38
Slightly different question - should or shall?
julie.hedlund
01:32:31
Note also that these are the GNSO’s procedures — not sure that the Bylaws require a consultation in the form of a formal meeting. We can check.
Mary Wong
01:33:23
Is the last point about accepting or rejecting a petition or deciding whether to support another DP’s accepted petition?
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:51
bye all have to drop the call
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:02
good bye Maxim
Mary Wong
01:35:32
In any case, the Bylaws don’t require the DPs to have formal meetings (i.e. no rule about mechanism for a decision); but the Bylaws DO require the formality of notices that announce the decision reached.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:36:05
I think treatment of individuals in this process is critical and needs further careful observation
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:36:14
wow - what a document
julie.hedlund
01:36:21
Staff have also tried to pull chat into the notes :-)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:39
thanks Heather and all
tatianatropina
01:37:41
thanks a lot, Heather and all
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:53
+1000
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:37:57
thanks and bye
Ariel Liang
01:37:59
Thanks everyone!
Mary Wong
01:38:02
Thanks Heather and everyone!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:05
bye