Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
17:54
oh, learning Dutch...
Tatiana Ttropina
18:01
Thank you, David - I am well, although still settling down, had to move in 5 weeks, was quite a quest
Tatiana Ttropina
19:22
Learning Dutch, yes…
Heather Forrest
19:51
Hooray for Holland!
Julie Hedlund
21:52
21 October 12:00 UTC meeting with GRC/DT
David McAuley (Verisign)
22:01
OK for me
Steve DelBianco
22:26
Ok for me
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
22:31
looks ok to me
Tatiana Ttropina
23:24
ok for me
Ariel Liang
23:58
It is particularly related to the guidelines for Section 1.3/1.4 of Section D
Ariel Liang
24:05
Sorry Annex D
Steve DelBianco
24:24
But this is a trivial change, regarding who represents the ccNSO.
Mary Wong
24:35
Yes, this will be the first time the GNSO will have potential rules/processes to handle an Approval Action - the first Approval Action forum took place two years ago.
Ariel Liang
24:48
Staff have updated the guidelines to be consistent with other related guidelines that we developed later
David McAuley (Verisign)
25:20
Thanks Ariel
Ariel Liang
25:27
No problem :)
Ariel Liang
25:48
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5AUnP-egEPqs9CDoWOzNUmc0dPFROTOlLWPq10QoOc/edit
David McAuley (Verisign)
30:35
I agree with Tatiana
Steve DelBianco
30:40
But even where circumstances do not change, we should expect a petitioner will want to fix errors and promptly re-submit
Tatiana Tropina
30:55
Steve, yes, there should be the thing, agree
Tatiana Tropina
31:13
application declined for procedural reasons: resubmit.
Tatiana Tropina
31:31
application declined for substantive reasons: resubmit only if new circumstances emerged
Tatiana Tropina
31:41
that would be sort of double safeguard?
Steve DelBianco
32:04
Good idea, Tatiana
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
32:59
I understand the council Leadership just checking on completeness rather than on substance
Tatiana Tropina
33:11
ah that’s even better. Then if leadership says no for procedural reasons — resubmit. If council decides for procedural reasons: only if new circumstances?
Tatiana Tropina
33:58
sorry the last sentences substantive reason
Tatiana Tropina
34:15
yup
Tatiana Tropina
34:35
sorry if I am missing any point here. :-)
Ariel Liang
35:02
GNSO community feedback, especially from the House that appointed the Director, can inform the decision by the Council in terms of the substance of the petition?
Heather Forrest
35:24
Yes, I agree, and I wonder if we're overthinking it
Ariel Liang
35:50
And btw, the ‘rationale’ part for the petition is not required by the bylaws
Tatiana Tropina
36:05
Agree with David
David McAuley (Verisign)
36:26
to sort gaps - probably a good idea
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
37:07
yes, that's I agree to. the Leadership is responsible to provide a complete Petition to the council
Steve DelBianco
37:24
“Is not complete with respect to required information”
David McAuley (Verisign)
37:40
+1
Tatiana Tropina
37:42
+2
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
37:44
+1
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:02
that totals to +4
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:22
or two squared
Tatiana Tropina
38:26
Oh I was just putting subsequent number, not substantive :-) no double personality yet!
David McAuley (Verisign)
39:01
old
Steve DelBianco
40:00
I would not make that promise or grant that permission
Tatiana Tropina
40:09
Wonder about “may”
Tatiana Tropina
40:12
may decide?
Steve DelBianco
40:20
Leave it to Leadership
Heather Forrest
40:35
Understood, so leave it as is
Steve DelBianco
41:00
Obligation is to inform petitioner about how their petition is not complete.
Steve DelBianco
41:04
That’s all
Tatiana Tropina
41:39
Steve, yes, then “may” is not appropriate as it doesn’t create obligation?
Tatiana Tropina
41:45
but am happy anyway
Ariel Liang
41:48
hand up
Ariel Liang
42:58
Sounds good
Tatiana Tropina
43:26
yes!! +1 to David
Tatiana Tropina
43:47
was wondering about the same otherwise they seem almost contradictory
Heather Forrest
44:01
and the Petitioner will be given ar easonable time to re-submit
Tatiana Tropina
44:07
yes
Tatiana Tropina
44:21
yes to Heather
Steve DelBianco
44:36
I do not think we need “for avoidance of doubt.” That phrase could precede much of what we are writing, and is implied
Tatiana Tropina
45:20
yes to “and”
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:28
add that failure of whicj will lead to termination
Tatiana Tropina
45:53
Yes to David. I doubt I wrote as many “yes” on any call as I do today
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
46:05
@Steve: would be a nice headline...
Steve DelBianco
46:15
“Failure to resubmit a correct and complete petition …"
David McAuley (Verisign)
46:45
failure to submit or resubmit will lead ...
Tatiana Tropina
47:08
I do not understand submit in it
Tatiana Tropina
47:38
I get it now
Ariel Liang
48:38
I’m just not sure whether we need ‘correct’
David McAuley (Verisign)
49:03
hand up
Heather Forrest
49:38
We'll come back to 'For the Avoidance of Doubt
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
49:49
"reasonable time" is up to the council Leadership to decide
Heather Forrest
49:51
I agree with not overwordsmithing here
Heather Forrest
50:05
Yes we do
Tatiana Tropina
50:26
Agree about reasonable time, agree that we don’t need the word correct
Tatiana Tropina
50:44
I think it’ll be up to the GNSO L-p to decide how much time to give
Tatiana Tropina
50:48
case by case
Mary Wong
51:13
Maybe you need to be clear that this means the Council is rejecting the Petition unless it is resubmitted in accordance with the requirements set out in these procedures.
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:41
I agree with whatHeather suggests
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
51:42
1st and 2nd sentences should be combined
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:11
agreed
Ariel Liang
52:36
Haven’t reached the ‘sick of it’ threshold
David McAuley (Verisign)
54:18
I agree with Heather
Steve DelBianco
54:20
not appropriate to limit
Tatiana Tropina
54:23
agree
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:47
I cannot recall what bylaw says, sorry
Ariel Liang
58:03
This is the bylaws section: Section 11.3(j)(vii) of the ICANN Bylaws, the decision shall be made by an affirmative GNSO Council vote of at least three-fourths (3/4) of the GNSO House that appointed the affected Director.
Heather Forrest
58:05
Bylaws require vote of 3.4 of affected House
Heather Forrest
58:18
Bylaws neither invite nor refuse vote by entire Council
Tatiana Tropina
59:05
Wolf-Ulrich, yes - this is why I say the entire GNSO should be a part fo discussion. However, if you are all comfortable with the idea that the entire council votes I won’t bring this case further as I see how it fits the broader concept of accountability
David McAuley (Verisign)
59:07
Thanks
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:49
Do we want full Council discussion/deliberation and only house vote, would that work
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:01:10
entire council should vote
Tatiana Tropina
01:01:12
David that’s what I proposed
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:14
I admit I am flummoxed on this one
Heather Forrest
01:01:17
Bylaws let us go either way
Heather Forrest
01:01:42
I'm inclined to vote the whole Council for transparency and accountability, but Bylaws don't require it
Tatiana Tropina
01:01:55
However, I understand Heather’s and Wolf-Ulrich’s points. The accountability is to the entire community/GNSO community
Tatiana Tropina
01:02:15
I still not 100% comfortable with either way. Sigh.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:21
Good point, Mary
Heather Forrest
01:02:23
I don't think it's at all possible for 'other' house to game the affected house's vote
Steve DelBianco
01:04:12
We want to know all concerns early in the process
Tatiana Tropina
01:04:21
Actually. I agree. There are further mechanisms for safeguarding the entire thing against gaming
Ariel Liang
01:04:35
No matter how the other house votes, if the affected house doesn’t get 3/4 of the votes, the petition won’t go forward
Tatiana Tropina
01:04:49
I feel more comfortable now.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:59
I am persuaded by Heather
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:16
no - you make the point well
Tatiana Tropina
01:05:19
No Heather — I totally like questioning myself really
Steve DelBianco
01:05:22
yes
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:05:29
++
Mary Wong
01:05:39
Do you think it necessary to at least get some support from the other house, even if it’s just one-third?
Mary Wong
01:06:09
(oops I meant one-fourth; I can’t count fractions!)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:43
yes, it kicks inon supermajority vote
Mary Wong
01:06:44
Ok
Ariel Liang
01:07:37
Hand up
Heather Forrest
01:09:02
Ops Procedure requirement, got it
Heather Forrest
01:09:35
We are providing a motion template with these guidelines
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:40
Ariel - middle of page 3
Ariel Liang
01:09:51
Yes David!
Ariel Liang
01:09:54
This part: Note, any individual may submit a petition for consideration and if the Council deems that it meets the requirements, the House that appointed the director is expected to submit the petition in the form of a motion for a vote by Council and to include the information as required per the ICANN Bylaws.
Heather Forrest
01:10:05
But the affected House is the party that put the Director there, so they should remove
Mary Wong
01:10:45
“is expected to” vs “must” submit the petition/motion?
Steve DelBianco
01:10:46
Because all board members are to act in the general interests of ICANN
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:11:39
so the petition is to be submitted by someone from the affected house?
Tatiana Tropina
01:11:50
yes
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:01
i think so but what if no one steps up
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:12:04
Is that reflected in the text?
Ariel Liang
01:12:25
Hm I thought the petition is to be submitted by any Individual?
Mary Wong
01:12:28
This will also exclude a NCA.
Tatiana Tropina
01:12:31
ah okay so motion. Better. I was a bit lost about petition
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:42
I am very unfamiliar with Council procedures
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:09
ok
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:19
that sounds right
Mary Wong
01:13:20
Petition = individual. Motion = Councilor (presumably enclosing the petition).
Ariel Liang
01:13:35
Correct
Tatiana Tropina
01:13:40
Yup, Mary, I got it — was wondering which one we were discussing.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:13:49
It strikes me personally to submit a Motion which I'm going to oject
Tatiana Tropina
01:13:52
Heather, this sounds like a path
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:14:01
object
Mary Wong
01:14:04
Does this include/exclude NCA that votes in that House?
Steve DelBianco
01:14:17
that NCA rep is not a director
Tatiana Tropina
01:14:28
I would assume they are not excluded
Tatiana Tropina
01:14:48
they are assign to vote for either house so we can’t exclude them I guess?
Tatiana Tropina
01:14:57
they are there for a reason after all…
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:07
assume house operates in the normal course
Mary Wong
01:15:17
Just wanting to be clear :) So a voting NCA can both submit the motion and vote.
Tatiana Tropina
01:15:24
Heather yes — sorry I am a bit loopy in my wording around midnight
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:15:38
...but the NCAs were not included in appointing the affected board member
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:17:37
sounds like it
Tatiana Tropina
01:17:49
yes they are a part of the voting process and thresholds…
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:16
five is ok - i need to leave to be on last half of RySG call
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:18:23
Maybe Ariel could check the whole text wrt using "GNSO" or "GNSO Council"
Tatiana Tropina
01:18:25
am fine. And am not the only one in this timezone
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:25
but can do 5-7 min
Ariel Liang
01:18:52
@Wolf-Ulrich, will do
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:19:08
Thanks Ariel
Ariel Liang
01:19:23
Good catch
Mary Wong
01:19:38
@Heather, all - may I take this last point to the Public Comment Team in Org (which I also happen to run)?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:21:13
No restrictions on this comment effort seems right to me - at this stage
Steve DelBianco
01:21:36
If all Councilors can vote, then all SG/Cs can comment
Tatiana Tropina
01:21:53
I think all SG/C should be able to comment
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:07
Agreed
Steve DelBianco
01:22:21
+
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:22:26
+1
Tatiana Tropina
01:22:31
+
Mary Wong
01:22:41
I realize the 7-days is a Bylaws requirement, so this is just an operational check
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:49
There is a opic in RySG call on which I am expected to speak - they are running late but it is close
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:00
topic
Tatiana Tropina
01:24:11
thank you David — good luck
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:25
thanks all, i must run, good bye
Tatiana Tropina
01:25:00
I was going to ask if legal will review!
Tatiana Tropina
01:25:39
thanks all, thank you Heather so much for charing and to Ariel for absolutely amazing drafting
Ariel Liang
01:25:44
(blush)
Tatiana Tropina
01:25:52
bye all
Ariel Liang
01:25:56
Thank you so much for everyone’s input!
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:25:56
Thanks all. Good bye