[gnso-osc-ops] Actions/Summary: 24 February Meeting

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Work Team members,

Ken Bour has helpfully provided the following action items and brief summary of 
the discussion from the call on Wednesday, 24 February.  Please let me know if 
you have any questions or changes.  These are posted on our wiki at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team.  Note also that 
our next meeting will be Face-to-Face in Nairobi 07 March at 0900 local time 
(0600 UTC, 0100 EST, 2200 PST 06 March, 0700 CEST, 0800 Jerusalem, 1400 Taiwan) 
in the Batian Room on the First Floor.

Best regards,

Julie

Action Items:
1. Section 4-Voting: Ken will provide Ray language to include that asks the OSC 
for advice concerning Sub-Section 4.4-Absentee Voting (COMPLETED). Ray will 
send the latest Section 4-Voting (“Legal Review”) version and 2009 Abstentions 
Analysis to the OSC along with an introductory email.
2. SOI/DOI: Ken agreed to make the necessary modifications to Section 5 (per 
above summary) and, at the team’s request, to clean-up all of the earlier 
comments and edits. He also agreed to format the document for inclusion in the 
GNSO Operation Procedures including a recommendation as to section. Ken was 
asked to send the new document directly to the list in the interest of 
expediency.  Work Team members to review the new SOI/DOI document and provide 
final comments no later than 3 March 2010 at which point that version will be 
sent to the OSC by Ray.
3. Next items on the GCOT agenda (Nairobi):

 *   Permanent procedures for Board Seat #13 and #14 Elections: A transitional 
procedure was approved by the Council on 28 Jan 2010 specifically for Board 
Seat #13 (as Annex 1), but it needs to be replaced. Ken previously agreed to 
create the first draft; however, that language has not yet been written (TBD).
 *   Section 2.1-GNSO Council Term Limits: This procedure needs to address the 
“special circumstance” referenced in the Bylaws. Ken has already drafted 
proposed language and will send to Ray for review and forwarding to the team as 
appropriate. It has not been submitted to Legal as yet; however, it has been 
reviewed by ICANN Policy Staff members.
 *   Section 4.4-Absentee Voting: TBD pending OSC advice concerning whether 
this language should be redrafted per Staff’s recommendation.

4. Remaining Action Items: Ray requested that Julie/Rob provide a complete list 
of remaining action items pertaining to GCOT’s mission so that it can both 
determine when its work is completed and also prioritize remaining activities.

Meeting Summary:

 *   The team discussed the most recent version of Section 4-Voting, including 
the new abstentions procedures, that has now cleared Legal review as of 19 Feb 
2010. Ray asked for the team’s approval to send the document to the OSC. All 
members present concurred.
 *   The team grappled with Wolf-Ulrich’s question about redacting the 
Councilor names from Staff’s 2009 Abstentions Analysis. After deliberating the 
pros/cons, a consensus was reached that the document should be sent in its 
present form with the names/affiliations listed. Ray noted and GCOT members 
assented that, in providing Staff’s Abstentions Analysis to the OSC, the team 
explicitly concurs with all of the opinions, interpretations, and assessments 
included in the report. Ken offered to make any modifications deemed necessary; 
none were requested.
 *   The team then resumed its work on the SOI/DOI document using the version 
sent by Julie on 18 Feb 2010. The work prior to Section 5 was reviewed and 
approved in its present form with thanks to Julie for making the appropriate 
changes.
 *   With respect to Section 5, a consensus was reached that “truthfulness” 
should be replaced by the term “accuracy.” It was agreed that paragraph 5.1 
should be specifically modified as follows:
    *   Remove references to “truthfulness”
    *   Reorder the provided remedy to: Relevant Party > Chair > Vice Chair (if 
Chair not available)
 *   The team also reached consensus to modify paragraph 5.2 as follows:
    *   Replace “truthfulness” with “accuracy” and remove references to 
“completeness” (covered in 5.1).
    *   Change the remedial procedure to reference the appeal process that has 
been developed as part of the Working Group Guidelines. Ken will research and 
include the appropriate language.
    *