Dear NCSG PC Member,
 
On the PC call this Tuesday I hope we'll be able to discuss the work we've been doing on the GNSO Bylaws drafting team (DT). Our final DT meeting is this Wednesday. I know all the NCSG members on the DT are anxious to discuss our work there with the wider NCSG community to ensure we get the final report done right.
 
I thought it might be useful to give everyone a heads up on the issues we've dealing with on the Drafting Team so everyone is prepared for the call. The DT has been charged by the GNSO Council with:
 
1. Working with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and
 
2. develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
 
In summary, the DT is charged with getting the GNSO ready to assume the new powers it will assume as a result of the accountability reforms we expect will be enacted along with the transition.
 
Among the issues we have been discussing:
 
1. What entity should be assuming responsibility for these new powers within the GNSO? Should it be the GNSO Council, some aggregation of Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies, some combination thereof or something else?
 
2. If we locate these powers within the GNSO Council what should be the role be of Councilors selected by the Nominating Committee with respect to the new powers?
 
3. Should the House structure be maintained for purposes of tabulating votes?
 
4. The DT has categorized the new powers into three broad categories: 1. Nominations, 2. Community Powers (to include Investigation rights), and 3. Document Inspection. The current default on Council is that powers not specifically enumerated in the Bylaws as having a specific threshold will have as a threshold the majority of each House. Do we want variable thresholds between categories, between and within categories, or are we content with the default threshold in all instances?
 
I've attached a copy of a post I made to the DT list prior to our last call. It's a bit dated but does reflect some degree of input I received from all of the NCSG DT members. Although there are some slight variations on specifics we support,  all of us do seem to share the belief that more radical alterations to GNSO decision making structures and procedures, that have been proposed by others,  are best left for other groups, such as the GNSO Review group, that are currently looking at the broader picture.
 
I look forward to discussing our options with everyone at the PC meeting this Tuesday.
 
Best,
 
Ed Morris