SECTION 18.12 SPECIAL Required review by GNSO See #11 Assumptions: . IFRS shall be determined by In those instances (a) A Special IFR may be majority of each house. where there is a initiated outside of the reference to GNSO cycle for the Periodic IFRs GNSO Supermajority, as Supermajority, there to address any deficiency, defined in Bylaws: is no need to add the problem or other issue “ (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the voting threshold to that has adversely affected Council members of each section 11.3 as a PTI’s performance under House, or (B) three-fourths GNSO Supermajority the IANA Naming Function (3/4) of the Council is already a defined Contract and IANA Naming members of one House and term. Function SOW [under] the a majority of the Council For (a) there needs following conditions: members of the other to be a process for (i) The Remedial Action House.” revising the Procedures of the CSC set procedures and forth in the IANA Naming outcomes (i) and (ii) Function Contract shall and then a have been followed and consultation process failed to correct the PTI developed with the Performance Issue and the ccNSO on whether to outcome of such initiate the IFR. Only procedures shall have then the threshold been reviewed by the comes into play. ccNSO and GNSO For the review according to each referenced in ii, the organization’s respective GNSO has processes operating procedures; available such as the (ii) The IANA Problem GIP it could use. 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
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. .
proposed-revisions-gnso-op-procedures-bylaws-staff-report-docx-16may17-en.docx