2019-05-02 GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Guidelines and Principles for the GNSO’s Roles and Obligations as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

1. Article 4, 4.3 and Annex D, 4.2: Put out for a final review for a week.
2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs:
1. Staff and Heather Forrest will draft guidelines for how to use the GNSO Input Process for a Special IFR
2. Staff will prepare questions for the ccNSO GRC to consider on consultation guidelines.
3. Timeline/Work Plan: Staff and Heather Forrest will update the timeline/work Plan

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2. Brief update on the timeline

3. Article 4 Accountability and Review - 4.3 Independent Review Process (IRP) for Covered ICANN Actions, and Annex D: EC Mechanism – 4.2 Community IRP – final version for review/approval

-- Send out for final approval for one week, to end Friday, 10 May

4. Section 18.12 Special IFRs;

a. Guidelines for Consultation with the ccNSO:

-- ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) met with DT members on Monday, 29 April concerning how to coordinate on developing guidelines on a “meaningful consultation” to initiate a Special IFR.

-- Questions were raised about whether the ccNSO and GNSO can initiate a Special IFR and the Bylaws seem to confirm that they can, although support staff will query ICANN Legal for confirmation on this and also about what happens after a Special IFR is launched.

-- Staff took the action to draft questions for the ccNSO relating to how it would consult with the GNSO on initiating a Special IFR, such as who would be the liaison from the two groups, what would be the trigger for initiation, how will communications be recorded, etc.

b. GNSO Guidelines on How to Develop Input for a Special IFR

-- Question: Is GIP workable for special IFR? Answer: Yes, but time is the constraining element. GIP needs to be tailored to account for the short timeframe.

-- Simplify process and can take some elements of GIP to cover our needs.

-- Steve DelBianco commented that GIP has not been used before and that we could use GIP as a rough framework to create something "bespoke".

-- If we create something “bespoke” and we find it needs to be changed once we use it (if we use it) we won’t be able to easily make changes without going through the public comment/Council approval process. If we do it as guidelines, we have the flexibility to change easily.


-- The GIP might be used in the future if necessary, just like the EPDP (which hadn’t been used before). If we develop guidelines, we would leave Annex 3 of the Operating Procedure as is.

-- Staff should not just rely on the existing rules but think about how to make it as simple as possible for the Special IFR purposes.

-- There is utility for having adjunct guidelines documents that reference the Operating Procedures. Guideline documents can change without changing the Operating Procedures.

-- If we change Annex 3 of the Operating Procedures, the changes would need to be put out for public comment, and the GNSO Council would formally need to approve the Revised Operating Procedures.

-- Question: If we draft guidelines to say "in Annex 3, in case of Special IFR, note in particular the following sections, and omit the following sections" then we don't need public comment?
 Anser: Correct. Those guidelines can change and evolve while the Operating Procedures can remain static.

ACTION ITEM: Heather to work with staff to develop a rough guideline as a separate stand-alone "HOW TO GUIDE" (e.g., how to use ANNEX 3 in the event of special IFR) to circulate with the DT. It will progress on the idea of creating guidelines on how to use the GIP for a Special IFR, rather than creating a separate Annex in the Operating Procedures to provide input for a Special IFR.