Thanks Heather

Not me

Again - none here

That’s fine David :-)

zoom mute perplexes me

Easy to double mute :-(

i do the same -

Special IFR, yes

ok David, thanks

and I haven't seen anything on this on the GRC list

Yes, will do Heather.

lost Heather

is anyone speaking

Yes, Heather is speaking

I will have to dial back in - sorry

David you may need to rejoin.

Practical exampe is super helpful, Julie - good thinking

Yes, we have received a request to hold a Community Action Forum in Montreal.

@Mary - just to confirm, the request received relates to teh ccNSO's fundamental bylaw change?

yes

thanks - good we don't have anything else brewing. I agree with David that this is a good one to experiment on.

An Approval Action Community Forum can be held 30 days after the Board approval, if so requested by the EC Admin.

And if it’s at the next scheduled ICANN meeting - hence the request for Montreal.

Understood, Mary -thanks

Right Heather, so we should make it “Representative to the EC Admin”

I don’t have the details about the document in question, but that sounds eminently sensible to me, including Julie’s suggestion.

Let's come back to it when Maxim is on the call

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)?

excellent

When we send the next draft we can call out that change to see if there are comments (say from Maxim)

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

Yes

Los Angeles.

Annex D, Bylaws.

Understood - good to know

Bylaws again :)

Hmmm... I'm sure Steve D would put me right here

California Corp Code requires a Secretary and yes, in ICANN’s case it’s our GC (JJ).

i havew a comment on 4.2

Could also say, “matter under consideration”?

Looks good Heather

I understand that if Forum 1 isn't sufficient to discuss in full, there could be more

Additional Forums can be held at discretion of Board or ECA

But if Board, Julie is correct - needs rationale. And Bylaws say “one or two” Forums.

As long as ECA has the power to do this, that's good

And yes, must be “during the Approval Action Community Forum Period"

Yes, correct, Heather. All this starts with the triggering of the EC’s Approval Action power.

Yes - in that case, the period will be longer than 30 days.

hand up

i have timing comment in 4.3 also

Correct - 21 days

that’s right David

So we’ll need to check the timing

Very helpful point David

“occurs”?

“If such a consultation occurs”?

Are you saying “should” consult or “must” consult?

+1 occurs

Staff might need to put in a little timing chart?

T minus etc.

counting back

I think we can be flexible — it’s not Bylaws timing — but we need to account for the 21 days.

A Decisional Participant is “deemed to have abstained” if it doesn’t inform the ECA of a decision.

that’s why a timing chart would help

;-)

Basically, you have flexibility WITHIN the 21 days, but not ABOUT the 21-day limit.

exactly Mary

Correct, David.

And yes, the Bylaws does speak of approval thresholds from the Decisional Participants - basically, combination of support plus non-objection. So abstentions matter.

Thank you all for joining and thanks Heather for sharing!

Chairing LOL