11:57:23	 From Steven Kim to Kimberly Carlson (Privately) : Seems strange.  I am usually the last one to the party. :)
11:57:43	 From Kimberly Carlson to Steven Kim (Privately) : Yes!  Weird.
12:00:55	 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome everyone
12:01:51	 From Danko Jevtović : hi
12:04:19	 From Steve Conte : 2 weeks is excellent in the world of reviews!  Well done everyone
12:04:38	 From James Gannon : Its unbelievable tbh =)
12:13:46	 From James Gannon : Its only 1st as its 1st in the contractual review 
12:14:47	 From Suzanne Woolf : +1 Peter
12:14:55	 From Kim Davies : The comment was there is no natural mechanism to revalidate the contacts are still up-to-date because there is no renewal process, once you get a .INT domain you effectively have the domain forever.
12:16:43	 From James Gannon : 100% understood, just wanted to make it clear =)
12:17:25	 From Frederico Neves : We are all in agreement ;-)
12:20:06	 From Kim Davies : I am not sure specifics need to be in the recommendation, just a general undertaking to review and identify areas for improvement
12:20:18	 From James Gannon : That was my goal yah
12:27:03	 From James Gannon : We could reward it to all CCOPs 
12:27:07	 From James Gannon : *reword
12:32:28	 From James Gannon : Should this be iana or pti.icann.org?
12:36:11	 From James Gannon : It was the order of the contract sections yep
12:41:39	 From Steve Conte : Should all suggested contract changes share the same due date (ie, if the board approves a contract change, it would make more sense to consider/effect all changes at the same time?)
12:42:12	 From James Gannon : I think...…… I tried to do that Bylaws = 365, Contract = 180
12:42:28	 From Steve Conte : Ahh, I mis read the 365d one, sorry James
12:42:45	 From James Gannon : That was my intent at least will make a 2nd pass
12:44:58	 From Suzanne Woolf : There’s only one bylaws change? To reconcile the duplication with the CSC. I did wonder whether the relevant ICANN bylaw is a “fundamental bylaw” but I don’t remember and ran out of time to check.
12:46:07	 From James Gannon : Yup its fundamental
12:46:27	 From James Gannon : Hence I think the full year is needed
12:46:29	 From James Gannon : at least
12:46:58	 From Suzanne Woolf : I was thinking a year might be optimistic, but it shouldn’t be controversial
12:47:08	 From Suzanne Woolf : So a year is a reasonable guess
12:47:17	 From James Gannon : Yeah @Danko maybe if you can pass that by Board Ops for reasonableness test?
12:58:42	 From Kim Davies : My apologies, I need to drop off for another call
12:59:35	 From Tomslin : Thanks for letting us know Kim
13:00:27	 From J.C. Vignes (UNR) : So do I, apologies!
13:00:46	 From Peter Koch : apologies, I need to move to another ICANN call
13:01:38	 From Tomslin : Thanks J.C and Peter
13:02:00	 From Danko Jevtović : @James, sorry, I was away
13:02:42	 From James Gannon : No worries, the question was can you ask BoardOps/Legal if Approval+365 days is a viable timeline for a fundamental bylaws change, and if not can they give us a recommended timeline
13:03:23	 From Danko Jevtović : we can go through Or support team
13:03:49	 From Danko Jevtović : I would be happy to consult with the board
13:04:09	 From James Gannon : Great thanks, feel free to reach out to me if there is any clarification needed
13:04:48	 From Danko Jevtović : ok
13:08:30	 From James Gannon : https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Public+Comment+Review+Tool
13:09:45	 From Danko Jevtović : its wide ;)
13:09:53	 From Rick Wilhelm (Verisign) : renders kinda weird
13:10:09	 From Danko Jevtović : you should open it in excel, not in browser
13:10:10	 From Rick Wilhelm (Verisign) : I think that the point is that it helps to structure the feedback…
13:10:22	 From Rick Wilhelm (Verisign) : rather than having the feedback be a “free-for-all”
13:10:33	 From Rick Wilhelm (Verisign) : good suggestion from James
13:12:07	 From Kristian Ørmen : Thanks
13:12:24	 From Rick Wilhelm (Verisign) : thx all… thanks James!