none here

nope

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OnFqzjkFTJEw0rzvaiBqAKLVnbbli-c_5t9aV2TEt10/edit#heading=h.1t3h5sf

Has ccNSO given any reaction to the edited docs?

I'm not sure if we would anticipate reaction, based on the call - everyone seemed pretty on board

To clarify, didn’t a ccNSO rep (Katrina?) help you to make these edits, David?

Not Katrina, Steve, but Bart

Katrina was concerned about summer holidays, hence I don't think we should do a 'last call' now

interesting that the MIN time is only half as long as the MAX time.

Do we think that 90 days will feel fast enough to those concerned about urgency?

I think I said I would look at timeline too and forgot to do that, will give it a go

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35OH6o/edit

just pick up where you left off

Agree we should say Representative instead of Chair

it’s so thoughtful that Heather says “Summer” for our benefit, since it’s Winter where she is!

“In no event later than” could be said simply as “within"

We did put in a timeline

yes, thanks Heather

yup. You are over-languificating !

agree with Heather - in no event means stict with bylaws

I think it would be helpful to put in a note here, as Council is likely to have the same question.

Maybe we simply put in a footnote to the relevant Bylaws provision

I think it’s a count of the Decisional Participants. There need to be a certain number voting yes (or no).

I now see the relevant language re abstention in the Bylaws provision we excerpted above.

For many EC decisions, the bylaws say approval occurs unless more than 1 OBJECTS to an approval action

Thanks Steve. We’ll confirm but I think that’s the case here too.

T-21 - here I think 'within' would be better than 'in'

Doc deadline rule does apply

keep in mind that some decisions requested by GNSO and ccNSO go to the full EC, who can reject the action. Is that true of IFRs too?

This discussion makes me think appplicants to GNSO Council should be informed that among their responsibilites is to be available on short notice when EC issues comes up

Okay, never mind about IFR rejections. We’ll look later

aha - GNSO Councillors

for each of the 3 Approval Action decisions in this section of bylaws, Approval requires 3 yes AND no more than 1 no.

no objection

Ariel is about as fast as imaginable in document revision - amazing

Yes, she is amazing!

(Blush)

That’s why Absentions are strategic and really do matter.

No changes to the templates

Staff highlighted where links need to be made or options

not here

all good

ALL GOOD :-)

sounds good

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bftPSj8N4xBUebP0F7s-qS51cel_pL-vyQimKGmOK0/edit

THIS section is where the EC could reject an IFR Recommendation that GNSO and ccNSO have previously approved

Yup. When we did these bylaws in 2016 we wanted to allow each AC/SO decisional participant to decide it’s own procedures to arrive at its decision.

@Steve - for GNSO does that also mean decision-making within the SG/Cs?

I regret to say I have a hard stop at top of hour

@Steve: noted

Yes, we can do an overall timeline. Also there are some graphics that the EC Administration has created that shows the process overall.

right

It would be good to know where flexibility is given in the timeline and which time periods are prescribed by the bylaws

Noted Wolf-Ulrich

Thanks Heather, Julie, Ariel, and all, gotta run

Old hand Steve?

Thanks David!

Thanks everyone