alleged violation. is the default voting threshold. A template will be developed that provides guidance for what should appear in the motion. Specifically, it would state, “"The claim shall state the basis for the dispute and the harms in reasonable detail." harms in reasonable detail. Who would represent the GNSO? Who would pay for representation? How would a claim that is supported by the GNSO be put forward? Such details could be in the form of a separate guideline which eventually are to be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures? 4.3(j) ICANN shall, in consultation with SO/ACs, initiate a four-step process to establish the [IRP] Standing Panel … [SO/ACs] shall nominate a slate of proposed panel members from the well-qualified candidates identified per the process set forth in Section 4.3(j)(ii)(B). 4.3(k) The Claimant and ICANN shall each select one panelist from the Standing Panel, and the two panelists selected by the parties will select the third panelist from the Standing Panel. Decisions to approve the nominated panelist shall be presented to Council for approval by a majority of each House No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The decision to nominate a slate of proposed panel members will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumptions: The process for nominating a slate of proposed panel members will be carried out by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
4.3(n) An IRP Implementation Oversight Team shall be established in consultation with SO/ACs and comprised of members of the global Internet community to develop clear, published rules for the IRP. 4.6 SPECIFIC REVIEWS (a) Review teams will be established for each applicable review, which will include both a limited number of members and an open number of observers. The chairs of SO/ACs shall select a group of up to 21 review team members from among the prospective members nominated by SO/ACs, balanced for diversity and skill: (A)Each SSO/AC may nominate up to seven prospective members for the review team; (B)Any SO/AC nominating one, two or three prospective review team members shall be entitled to have those one, two or three nominees selected as Each GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder Group may nominate 1 candidate. (7 candidates for GNSO) Decisions to approve the 21 total review team members shall be presented to Council for approval by a majority of each House. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The decision to nominate up to seven prospective members for the review team will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumptions: The process for nominating up to seven prospective members of the review team will be carried out by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee. The Council may provide guidance to GNSO Chair for priorities and criteria in selecting from nominees to fill open review team slots.
ARTICLE 6 EMPOWERED COMMUNITY SECTION 6.1 COMPOSITION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPOWERED COMMUNITY (a) The Empowered Community (“EC”) shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC Majority of each House to approve GNSO representative on EC No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The proposal for the GNSO to appoint the GNSO representative on the EC Administration will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumptions: The process for selecting the GNSO representative on the EC Administration will be carried out by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee. The DT recommendation intended to refer to the EC Administration. SECTION 6.1 COMPOSITION AND ORGANIZATION OF EMPOWERED COMMUNITY (g) Each Decisional Participant shall, except as otherwise provided in Annex D, adopt procedures for exercising the rights of such Decisional Participant pursuant to the procedures set forth in Annex D, including (i) who can submit a petition to such Decisional Participant, … (iii) how the Decisional Participant GNSO Council speaks for GNSO, based on approval by majority of each house. PROCESS NOTES: Procedures for exercising the rights of a Decisional Participant as described in (i)-(vi) No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. Any decisions in relation to the role of the GNSO as a Decisional Participant will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold.
the individual who shall represent Decisional Participant on the EC. (b) In representing a Decisional Participant on the EC, the representative individual shall act solely as directed by the represented Decisional Participant and in accordance with processes developed by such Decisional Participant in accordance with Section 6.1(g). threshold. GNSO decide whether another person than the GNSO Chair should be designated to the EC Administration? In case the GNSO decides that another person should be designated, what selection process should be in place to review / evaluate candidates to serve as the GNSO representative on the EC Administration? Can the general process for appointments / nominations be followed? Is there a need to consider an alternate in case the representative is not available?
ARTICLE 7 BOARD OF DIRECTORS SECTION 7.12 designating INTERIM DIRECTORS to fill vacancies created by EC recall 7.12(a) A vacancy occurring in Seats 1 through 15 shall be filled by the EC after nomination as provided in Section 7.2 and Articles 8 - 12. 7.12(b) [Concerning vacancies when entire Board is recalled] Concurrently with delivery of any EC Board Recall Notice, the EC shall provide notice of the EC’s designation of individuals to fill such vacancies. An Interim Director shall hold office until the EC designates the Interim Director’s successor Names of interim director(s) must be approved by majority of each house GNSO selection of it’s replacement director(s) should follow current procedures. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The GNSO nomination of an interim director for any of the GNSO seats will follow the existing procedures developed by the CPH and NCPH. (Note, the NCPH selection procedures are still under development). Similarly, the confirmation by the GNSO Council is typically handled as part of the consent agenda where the default voting threshold of a simple majority vote of each house would apply. Assumptions: ‘Names of interim director(s) must be approved by a majority of each house’ only applies to the interim directors for the GNSO seats. SECTION 11.3 GNSO COUNCIL (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, This is the existing Bylaws section describing GNSO voting thresholds. This section can be No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. Assumptions: In those instances where there is a reference to GNSO
Annex A, or GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: amended to add new thresholds required in bylaws or recommended by DT and approved by GNSO Council. The DT notes that Sec 17.3 requires “simple majority of GNSO Council”, and suggests that GNSO Operating Procedures define that as a majority of Council, or a majority of each house. Supermajority, there is no need to add the voting threshold to section 11.3 as a GNSO Supermajority is already a defined term. For those decisions that are new as a result of the GNSO’s role in the EC but that are subject to the default voting threshold, no changes to the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures are required. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to draw up a separate list so that the GNSO is aware what decisions it may be required to or may be asked to make as part of the EC. The reference to simple majority of GNSO Council refers to the default voting threshold of simple majority of each house.
SECTION 16.2 PTI GOVERNANCE No amendment or modification of the articles of incorporation of PTI shall be effective unless approved by the EC GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by GNSO Supermajority for approval of PTI Amendments . Add new voting thresholds for the following action by GNSO Council in its role as Decisional Participant to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws: Amendment of PTI Articles of Incorporation – GNSO Supermajority. Assumptions: Decision gets sent to and is tallied by the EC Administration, and then based on the EC threshold is essentially No independent action is needed at the EC Administration level. SECTION 16.3 IANA NAMING FUNCTIONS CONTRACT ICANN shall enter into contract with PTI for performance of IANA naming functions. … ICANN shall not agree to modify, amend or waive any Material Terms of the IANA Naming Function Contract if a majority of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils reject the proposed modification, amendment or waiver. GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by majority of each house. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. Assumption: The reference to the GNSO representative on the EC by the DT was an oversight, as no action is required of the EC or EC Administration in Section 16.3, which refers to a majority of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils. SECTION 17.1 CSC The CSC is not authorized to initiate a change in PTI through a Special IFR, but may escalate a failure to GNSO Council speaks for GNSO, and a majority of each house is required to instruct the GNSO Representative on the EC. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The required action will be put Assumptions: The reference in the DT recommendation to the EC is an oversight as the
(d) Amendments to the CSC Charter shall not be effective unless ratified by the vote of a simple majority of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils pursuant to each such organizations’ procedures. Prior to any action by the ccNSO and GNSO, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter shall be subject to a public comment period The DT notes that Sec 17.3 requires “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, and suggests that GNSO Operating Procedures define that as a majority of Council, or a majority of each house. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The decision to approve amendments to the CSC charter will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumptions: The reference to simple majority of GNSO Council refers to the default voting threshold of simple majority of each house. Coordination with the ccNSO in relation to any possible amendments is anticipated. ARTICLE 18 IANA NAMING FUNCTION REVIEWS SECTION 18.2 FREQUENCY OF PERIODIC IFRS (c) In the event a Special IFR is ongoing at the time a Periodic IFR is required to be convened under this Section 18.2, the Board shall cause the convening of the Periodic IFR to be delayed if such delay is approved by the vote of (i) a supermajority of the ccNSO Council … and (ii) a GNSO Supermajority. No recommended action, noting that GNSO Supermajority is defined in Bylaws: “ (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.” See #11 See #11 SECTION 18.6 RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE IANA NAMING FUNCTION No recommended action, noting that GNSO Supermajority is defined in Bylaws: No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws Assumptions: In those instances where there is a reference to GNSO
CONTRACT, IANA NAMING FUNCTION SOW OR CSC CHARTER (b) (i) The IFR Recommendation becomes effective if it has been approved by the vote of … and (B) a GNSO Supermajority. “ (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.” Supermajority, there is no need to add the voting threshold to section 11.3 as a GNSO Supermajority is already a defined term. SECTION 18.7 COMPOSITION OF IFR REVIEW TEAMS Each GNSO SG can appoint one member (except that the RySG may appoint two). One of the two IFRT co-chairs is to be appointed “by the GNSO” from among the members appointed by the different stakeholder groups or constituencies in the GNSO. There is also the possibility of “other participants” that cannot vote. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group designates its own review team members: 2 from RySG; 1 from RrSG; 1 from CSG; 1 from NCSG. GNSO Council approves the GNSO co-chair on IFRT from among the 6 GNSO reps, by majority of each house. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The decision to approve the GNSO Co-chair on the IFRT among the 5 GNSO reps will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumption: There is no role here for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee as appointments are directly made by the SGs (this will need to be made clear in the charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee) Each SG will publish the procedures for making appointments in its respective operating procedures. The reference to “6” GNSO reps should read “5”.
SECTION 18.12 SPECIAL IFRS (a) A Special IFR may be initiated outside of the cycle for the Periodic IFRs to address any deficiency, problem or other issue that has adversely affected PTI’s performance under the IANA Naming Function Contract and IANA Naming Function SOW [under] the following conditions: (i) The Remedial Action Procedures of the CSC set forth in the IANA Naming Function Contract shall have been followed and failed to correct the PTI Performance Issue and the outcome of such procedures shall have been reviewed by the ccNSO and GNSO according to each organization’s respective operating procedures; (ii) The IANA Problem Resolution Process set forth in the IANA Naming Function Contract shall have been followed and failed to correct the PTI Performance Issue and the outcome of such process Required review by GNSO shall be determined by majority of each house. GNSO Supermajority, as defined in Bylaws: “ (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.” See #11 Assumptions: In those instances where there is a reference to GNSO Supermajority, there is no need to add the voting threshold to section 11.3 as a GNSO Supermajority is already a defined term. For (a) there needs to be a process for revising the procedures and outcomes (i) and (ii) and then a consultation process developed with the ccNSO on whether to initiate the IFR. Only then the threshold comes into play. For the review referenced in ii, the GNSO has processes available such as the GIP it could use. .
the EC to initiate (A) a Community Independent Review Process pursuant to Section 4.3 of Annex D or (B) a Board Recall Process pursuant to Section 3.3 of Annex D. concern e(ii) or e(iii) may be requested by any GNSO SG/C to be added to the consent agenda without the ability to deny this request nor the ability for anyone to remove this item from the consent agenda unless requested by the original requestor. SECTION 22.8 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION If three or more Decisional Participants deliver to the Secretary a joint written certification from the respective chairs of each Decisional Participant that the constituents of such Decisional Participants have, pursuant to the internal procedures of such Decisional Participants, determined that there is a credible allegation that ICANN has committed fraud or that there has been a gross mismanagement of ICANN’s resources,… [excerpt] GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by majority of each house. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. The action requested will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumption: The DT’s reference to the EC may be an oversight as the Bylaws do not require that this action go through the EC Administration. Where the GNSO receives a request from another Decisional Participant to consider joining such a certification, deliberations on whether to do so will take place within the GNSO SG/Constituencies and at Council level (where a vote will be taken on a final decision) in
accordance with existing practice and procedures. SECTION 25.2 AMENDMENTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BYLAWS & ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 25.2(b) a Fundamental Bylaw or the Articles of Incorporation may be altered, amended, or only upon approval by a vote of all Directors and the approval of the EC as set forth in this Section 25.2. GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by GNSO Supermajority Add new voting threshold for the following action by GNSO Council to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws: Amendments to Fundamental Bylaws & Articles of Incorporation -- GNSO Supermajority. Assumptions: The motion should include direction to forward to EC Administration, which will just tally the votes to determine if the overall EC threshold is met. There is no specific additional role for the EC Administration or for the GNSO representative to the EC Administration. ARTICLE 26 SALE & DISPOSITION OF ICANN ASSETS 26(a) ICANN may consummate a transaction or series of transactions that would result in the sale or disposition of all or substantially all of ICANN’s assets (an “Asset Sale”) only upon approval by a three-fourths vote of all Directors and the approval of the EC as set forth in this Article 26. GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by GNSO Supermajority. Add new voting threshold for the following action by GNSO Council to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws: Approval of Sale & Disposition of ICANN Assets -- GNSO Supermajority. Assumptions: The motion should include direction to forward to EC Administration, which will just tally the votes to determine if the overall EC threshold is met. There is no specific additional role for the EC Administration or for the GNSO representative to the EC Administration. ANNEX D EC MECHANISM SECTION 1.2 APPROVAL PROCESS GNSO notification, but no decision. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures Assumption: The existing methods for the GNSO to send a
approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. requirement on that. SECTION 1.4 DECISION WHETHER TO APPROVE AN APPROVAL ACTION Regarding: Fundamental Bylaw Amendments Articles Amendments Asset Sales GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by GNSO Supermajority Add new voting threshold for the following action by GNSO Council to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws: Approval of an Approval Action regarding Fundamental Bylaw amendments, Articles amendments or Asset Sales - GNSO Supermajority. Assumptions: This is a notification to the EC Admin as a whole for tallying. SECTION 2.2 PETITION PROCESS FOR SPECIFIED ACTIONS (b) During the period beginning on the Rejection Action Board Notification Date and ending on the 21st day after the Rejection Action Board Notification Date, subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to a Decisional Participant, seeking to GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by majority of each house. Addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures to: 1) clarify that in specific circumstances, the GNSO Council may waive the timeframes currently referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures in relation to submission of motions as well as scheduling of meetings to meet its obligations under the timelines outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as a Decisional Participant, and 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions submitted
reject the Rejection Action and initiate the Rejection Process (a “Rejection Action Petition”). (c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide …written notice of such acceptance by an individual must be submitted through a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency to the GNSO Council. For this purpose, each GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency must develop clear rules for the submission of such petitions, including any requirements for the criteria to be included in a petition. These rules would be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures as an annex once available. GNSO Council action on the receipt, acceptance or rejection of a Rejection Action Petition will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. The motion must be framed as a petition, and include the Bylaws-required rationale. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold and as such does not require any further change.
(d) Following the delivery of a Rejection Action Petition Notice to the EC Administration pursuant to Section 2.2(c)(i) of this Annex D, the Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant shall contact the EC Administration and the other Decisional Participants to determine whether any other Decisional Participants support the Rejection Action Petition. (i) If the Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant obtains the support of at least one other Decisional Participant (a “Rejection Action Supporting Decisional Participant”) … the Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant shall provide written notice, to include: (A) a supporting rationale in reasonable detail; (C) a statement as to whether or not the Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant and/or the GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by majority of each house. PROCESS NOTES: (d) Contact EC Administration and other Decisional Participants to determine whether any others support. (i) Providing written notice to the EC Administration, other Decisional Participant and Secretary. (A) Supporting rationale. (B) Contact information. (C) Statement re: conference call. (D) Statement re: forum. (E) Citing PDP Standard Bylaw Statement. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. All decisions (including whether to support a Rejection Action Petition) will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3-I of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold. Assumptions: A template to be developed for a Rejection Action Supporting Petition which will include the following information: (A) Supporting rationale, (B) Contact information, (C) Statement re: conference call, (D) Statement re: forum, (E) Citing PDP Standard Bylaw Statement. The first part of this process is only triggered if the GNSO received a petition and accepts it according to its procedures. Notice of acceptance must include rationale, etc. as set forth in 2.2ciA. Then the GNSO will need to determine the process that it would follow to become a Supporting Decisional Participant if it receives notice of a petition from another DP.
Rejection Action Supporting Decisional Participant requests that ICANN organize a conference call prior to the Rejection Action Community Forum for the community to discuss the Rejection Action Supported Petition; (D) a statement as to whether the Rejection Action Petitioning and Supporting Decisional Participants have determined to hold the Rejection Action Community Forum during the next scheduled ICANN public meeting. (E) a PDP Standard Bylaw Statement The GNSO will also need processes to identify its representative for purpose of the petition to act as a liaison and how it will provide direction to that person. SECTION 2.3 REJECTION ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM 2.3(a) If the EC Administration receives a Rejection Action Supported Petition under Section 2.2(d) of this Annex D during the Rejection Action Petition Support Period, ICANN shall, at the direction of the EC Administration, GNSO representative on the EC will act in accord with instructions approved by majority of each house. No new procedures or changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws. Assumptions: If there is a supported petition, the need for a community forum is automatic. The GNSO can consider how it wishes to organize its representation and participation at the Community Forum.
remove a Director holding Seats 1 through 8 and initiate the Nominating Committee Director Removal Process (“Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition”). Each Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition shall set forth the rationale upon which such individual seeks to remove such Director. (b) During the period beginning on the date that the Decisional Participant received the Removal Petition and ending on the 21st day after, the Decisional Participant that has received a Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition shall either accept or reject such Nominating Committee Director Removal Petition; (i) the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioning Decisional Participant must obtain the support of at least one other Decisional to be submitted in the form of a motion is expected to include the information as required per the ICANN Bylaws. Addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures to clarify that in specific circumstances, the GNSO Council may waive the timeframes currently referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures in relation to submission of motions as well as scheduling of meetings to meet its obligations under the timelines outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as a Decisional Participant and 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions concerning a director removal process submitted by an individual must be submitted directly to the GNSO Council. For this purpose, the GNSO Council will develop a clear process and rules for the submission of such petitions, including any requirements for the criteria to be included in a petition. These rules would in the Bylaws are to be followed, factoring in the customary GNSO practices and procedures.
Participant … Each Decisional Participant shall provide a written notice to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary, to include: (A) a supporting rationale in reasonable detail; (C) a statement as to whether or not the Nominating Committee Director Removal Petitioning and/or supporting Decisional Participant requests that ICANN organize a conference call prior to the Nominating Committee Director Removal Community Forum for the community to discuss the Nominating Committee Director Removal Supported Petition; and (f) Following the expiration of the Nominating Committee Director Removal Community Forum Period, each Decisional Participant shall inform the EC Administration in writing as to whether such Decisional Participant (i) be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures as an annex once available.. Note, in relation to 1), due to the added requirement here for a dialogue with the affected Director, to take place during the 21-day petitioning period, the Operating Procedures would make clear that any expedited Council vote should not take place before this dialogue (or a reasonable opportunity for one) has taken place.
supports such Nominating Committee Director Removal Supported Petition, (ii) objects to such Nominating Committee Director Removal Supported Petition or (iii) has determined to abstain from the matter (which shall not count as supporting or objecting to the Nominating Committee Director Removal Supported Petition), SECTION 3.2 SO/AC DIRECTOR REMOVAL PROCESS (a) Subject to the procedures and requirements developed by the applicable Decisional Participant, an individual may submit a petition to the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO or At-Large Community (as applicable, the “Applicable Decisional Participant”) seeking to remove a Director who was nominated by that Supporting Organization or the At-Large Community in accordance with Section 7.2(a) of the Bylaws, and GNSO will determine in its procedures how to satisfy the ¾ threshold required in Bylaws Annex D Section 3.2(f) “three-quarters majority as determined pursuant to the internal procedures of the Applicable Decisional Participant”. Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision. Add new voting threshold for the following action by GNSO Council to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws: Approval of a petition to remove a director holding seats 13 or 14 - three-quarters of the House that appointed that Director. Note, the petition which is to be submitted by a member of the House that appointed the director, is expected to be in the form of a motion and to include the information as required per the ICANN Bylaws. Assumptions: The steps as outlined in the Bylaws are to be followed, factoring in the customary GNSO practices and procedures.
initiate the SO/AC Director Removal (b) During the 21 day period, the Applicable Decisional Participant shall either accept or reject such SO/AC Director Removal Petition pursuant to the internal procedures of the Applicable Decisional Participant. (i) If the Applicable Decisional Participant accepts an SO/AC Director Removal Petition, the Applicable Decisional Participant shall, within twenty-four (24) hours of the Applicable Decisional Participant’s acceptance of the SO/AC Director Removal Petition, provide written notice (“SO/AC Director Removal Petition Notice”) of such acceptance. Such SO/AC Director Removal Petition Notice shall include: (A) a supporting rationale in reasonable detail; (B) contact information for at least one representative who has been designated by the Applicable Decisional Participant who Addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures to clarify that in specific circumstances, the GNSO Council may waive the timeframes currently referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures in relation to submission of motions as well as scheduling of meetings to meet its obligations under the timelines outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as a Decisional Participant and 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions concerning a director removal process submitted by an individual must be submitted directly to the GNSO Council. For this purpose, the GNSO Council will develop a clear process and rules for the submission of such petitions, including any requirements for the criteria to be included in a petition. These rules would be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures as an annex once available.
with the Board’s implementation of GAC Consensus Advice and (ii) the EC did not prevail in such Community IRP. Each Board Recall Petition shall include a rationale setting forth the reasons why such individual seeks to recall the Board. The process set forth in this Section 3.3 of this Annex D is referred to herein as the “Board Recall Process.” (b) A Decisional Participant that has received a Board Recall Petition shall either accept or reject such Board Recall Petition during the period beginning on the date the Decisional Participant received the Board Recall Petition (“Board Recall Petition Date”) and ending at 11:59 p.m. (as calculated by local time at the location of ICANN’s principal office) on the date that is the 21st day after the Board Recall Petition Date (the “Board Recall Petition Period”). (i) If, in accordance with Section 3.3(b) of this timeframes currently referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures in relation to submission of motions as well as scheduling of meetings to meet its obligations under the timelines outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as a Decisional Participant and 2) add a provision to clarify that all petitions concerning a director removal process submitted by an individual must be submitted directly to the GNSO Council. For this purpose, the GNSO Council will develop a clear process and rules for the submission of such petitions, including any requirements for the criteria to be included in a petition. These rules would be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures as an annex once available.