Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view

Playback Range -

David McAuley (Verisign)

35:07

none here

David McAuley (Verisign)

35:16

nope

Ariel Liang

35:46

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

Steve DelBianco

37:49

Has ccNSO given any reaction to the edited docs?

Heather Forrest

38:30

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

Steve DelBianco

38:45

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

39:36

Not Katrina, Steve, but Bart

Heather Forrest

40:52

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

Steve DelBianco

41:26

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

Steve DelBianco

41:44

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

44:40

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

Ariel Liang

45:27

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

Steve DelBianco

46:05

just pick up where you left off

Steve DelBianco

48:25

Agree we should say Representative instead of Chair

Steve DelBianco

49:49

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

Steve DelBianco

52:00

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

Julie Hedlund

52:13

We did put in a timeline

David McAuley (Verisign)

52:15

yes, thanks Heather

Steve DelBianco

53:20

yup. You are over-languificating !

David McAuley (Verisign)

53:20

agree with Heather - in no event means stict with bylaws

Heather Forrest

56:37

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

Heather Forrest

56:47

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

Julie Hedlund

58:19

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

Heather Forrest

58:38

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

Steve DelBianco

58:46

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

Julie Hedlund

59:53

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:01:40

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

Heather Forrest

01:01:45

Doc deadline rule does apply

Steve DelBianco

01:03:22

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?

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:04:33

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

Steve DelBianco

01:04:45

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

Heather Forrest

01:05:54

aha - GNSO Councillors

Steve DelBianco

01:08:20

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:11:28

no objection

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:12:09

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

Julie Hedlund

01:12:18

Yes, she is amazing!

Ariel Liang

01:12:28

(Blush)

Steve DelBianco

01:13:02

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

Julie Hedlund

01:13:21

No changes to the templates

Julie Hedlund

01:13:32

Staff highlighted where links need to be made or options

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:15:03

not here

Steve DelBianco

01:15:05

all good

Julie Hedlund

01:16:07

ALL GOOD :-)

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:16:09

sounds good

Ariel Liang

01:16:32

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

Steve DelBianco

01:17:42

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

Steve DelBianco

01:20:11

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.

Heather Forrest

01:20:37

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:23:24

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

Julie Hedlund

01:24:58

@Steve: noted

Julie Hedlund

01:27:15

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

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:28:21

right

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

01:29:02

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

Julie Hedlund

01:29:18

Noted Wolf-Ulrich

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:29:57

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

Julie Hedlund

01:30:07

Old hand Steve?

Julie Hedlund

01:30:11

Thanks David!

Ariel Liang

01:30:35

Thanks everyone

Download

Upcoming Meetings