Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:19
Thanks Heather
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:36
Not me
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:09
Again - none here
julie.hedlund
44:50
That’s fine David :-)
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:17
zoom mute perplexes me
julie.hedlund
45:37
Easy to double mute :-(
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:37
i do the same -
Heather Forrest
48:47
Special IFR, yes
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
49:31
ok David, thanks
David McAuley (Verisign)
50:48
and I haven't seen anything on this on the GRC list
julie.hedlund
50:56
Yes, will do Heather.
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:02
lost Heather
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:08
is anyone speaking
Andrea Glandon
51:15
Yes, Heather is speaking
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:24
I will have to dial back in - sorry
julie.hedlund
51:25
David you may need to rejoin.
Heather Forrest
55:33
Practical exampe is super helpful, Julie - good thinking
mary.wong
58:44
Yes, we have received a request to hold a Community Action Forum in Montreal.
Heather Forrest
59:14
@Mary - just to confirm, the request received relates to teh ccNSO's fundamental bylaw change?
mary.wong
59:22
yes
Heather Forrest
59:49
thanks - good we don't have anything else brewing. I agree with David that this is a good one to experiment on.
mary.wong
01:00:21
An Approval Action Community Forum can be held 30 days after the Board approval, if so requested by the EC Admin.
mary.wong
01:00:42
And if it’s at the next scheduled ICANN meeting - hence the request for Montreal.
Heather Forrest
01:00:56
Understood, Mary -thanks
julie.hedlund
01:05:29
Right Heather, so we should make it “Representative to the EC Admin”
mary.wong
01:06:24
I don’t have the details about the document in question, but that sounds eminently sensible to me, including Julie’s suggestion.
Heather Forrest
01:06:39
Let's come back to it when Maxim is on the call
mary.wong
01:07:15
I think it depends on the role this person is being asked to play in the document in question - is it the role of the GNSO Chair or of the GNSO rep to the ECA (who may or may not happen to be the GNSO Chair)?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:10
excellent
julie.hedlund
01:09:14
When we send the next draft we can call out that change to see if there are comments (say from Maxim)
julie.hedlund
01:11:31
Here’s the link to the document if you want to scroll yourselves: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6GhVNc/edit?usp=sharingAOB
mary.wong
01:12:04
Yes
mary.wong
01:12:08
Los Angeles.
mary.wong
01:12:17
Annex D, Bylaws.
Heather Forrest
01:12:32
Understood - good to know
mary.wong
01:14:08
Bylaws again :)
Heather Forrest
01:14:46
Hmmm... I'm sure Steve D would put me right here
mary.wong
01:16:52
California Corp Code requires a Secretary and yes, in ICANN’s case it’s our GC (JJ).
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:21:06
i havew a comment on 4.2
julie.hedlund
01:21:10
Could also say, “matter under consideration”?
julie.hedlund
01:22:57
Looks good Heather
Heather Forrest
01:25:23
I understand that if Forum 1 isn't sufficient to discuss in full, there could be more
mary.wong
01:25:31
Additional Forums can be held at discretion of Board or ECA
mary.wong
01:25:47
But if Board, Julie is correct - needs rationale. And Bylaws say “one or two” Forums.
Heather Forrest
01:25:59
As long as ECA has the power to do this, that's good
mary.wong
01:26:05
And yes, must be “during the Approval Action Community Forum Period"
mary.wong
01:27:00
Yes, correct, Heather. All this starts with the triggering of the EC’s Approval Action power.
mary.wong
01:28:01
Yes - in that case, the period will be longer than 30 days.
julie.hedlund
01:28:48
hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:28:57
i have timing comment in 4.3 also
mary.wong
01:30:58
Correct - 21 days
julie.hedlund
01:31:02
that’s right David
julie.hedlund
01:31:09
So we’ll need to check the timing
julie.hedlund
01:31:46
Very helpful point David
julie.hedlund
01:34:30
“occurs”?
julie.hedlund
01:34:46
“If such a consultation occurs”?
mary.wong
01:34:50
Are you saying “should” consult or “must” consult?
Heather Forrest
01:35:00
+1 occurs
julie.hedlund
01:36:15
Staff might need to put in a little timing chart?
julie.hedlund
01:36:41
T minus etc.
julie.hedlund
01:36:46
counting back
julie.hedlund
01:37:44
I think we can be flexible — it’s not Bylaws timing — but we need to account for the 21 days.
mary.wong
01:38:37
A Decisional Participant is “deemed to have abstained” if it doesn’t inform the ECA of a decision.
julie.hedlund
01:38:59
that’s why a timing chart would help
julie.hedlund
01:39:07
;-)
mary.wong
01:39:14
Basically, you have flexibility WITHIN the 21 days, but not ABOUT the 21-day limit.
julie.hedlund
01:39:21
exactly Mary
mary.wong
01:41:04
Correct, David.
mary.wong
01:42:18
And yes, the Bylaws does speak of approval thresholds from the Decisional Participants - basically, combination of support plus non-objection. So abstentions matter.
julie.hedlund
01:42:26
Thank you all for joining and thanks Heather for sharing!
julie.hedlund
01:42:34
Chairing LOL