Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room

Playback Range -

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

Download

Upcoming Meetings