Sub-group Members:   Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Carlos Raul, Cherine Chalaby, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Mike Chartier, Olivier Muron, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (21)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Berry Cobb, Karine Perset, Laena Rahim

Apologies:  Jordan Carter

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**




1. Review Agenda

2. Agree volunteer allocation & work items for next three calls

3. Budget power (starting 16h30)

-        Jonathan Zuck presents summary of public comments

-        Cherine Chalaby teases out current ICANN process and    concerns with CCWG proposal

-        discussion to achieve:

    • consensus approach to suggest to CCWG, or
    • clear options to suggest to CCWG

4. Any other business


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.


Solidifying list of volunteers who will analyze comments by Oct 12:

Budget, strat plan, op plan --> Jonathan Zuck, Cherine Chalaby, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Mary Uduma

Standard Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon

Fundamental Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon

Individual Director removal --> Mike Chartier, Robin Gross 

Board removal --> Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg 

AoC --> Steve Del Bianco, Avri Doria, Carlos Raul Gutierrez

Community forum --> Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Jorge Cancio

CMSM --> Avri Doria, Robin Gross, Steve Del Bianco, Jorge Cancio, Samantha Eisner, Alan Greenberg

Note: Jonathan Zuck is in process of summarizing outcome of breakout session on community decision-making

ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to 

Budget, Strat Plan, Op Plan

Comments are in favor of notion of better community empowerment for budget. 

This powers appears to be essential as a backstop. Concerns/divergences include: 1) allocation of votes. SOs control of budget over others; 2) Endless loop - it could lead to deadlock. Raising vote threshold for second veto ; 3) Power is overly broad; 4) Keep IANA budget separate; 5) What impact would this have on Board's liability/fiduciary responsibility


- Endless loop idea is that vetos could block company to function. Having company run on a fixed budget could solve problem. Define rules of fallback budget.

- LA discussions should be taken into account. It should include Board comments as well.

--> Board comments reflected but LA input is not included. 

--> LA comments are not part of the tool

- Strong criticism from community has to have more weight than individual. Comment "Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN’s revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters" is shocking. There is no comment on budget veto when Board is trying to reduce budget significantly. This would have impact on fiduciary duty. 

--> Idea of budget needing to be cut is not something anticipated as a problem but it worthy a discussion. We created the problem when solving the loop problem. 

- We should not be weighting comments not defining weights. 

- RySG comment stems from concern that it may have a potential impact revenue side of budgeting – i.e. raising fees.

- We are not weighting votes.Your task should be to review all comments equally. 

- There is credibility in looking at uses of resources. They tend to relate to gTLD activities. We need to pay attention to Chartering Organizations but more important for us to look at good ideas to resolve issues.

- A breakdown of incomes may be helpful for information. Those who fund should be given more weight. Quorum is important

- Any community powers should be exercised by community as a whole. It does not prejudge that community on income side could have special say when discussing issues at stake for veto. No discrimination between parts of community. 

Task ahead will be to expand on these ideas for consideration:

  • Line item veto – community identifies portions to veto in lieu of vetoing full budget;
  • On vote allocation, suggestion to cordon off where x has influence;
  • Clarify language on PTI 

Should WP1 address this issue for CCWG?

Strong consensus when we can – if not, we will present options. 

Cherine is speaking in personal capacity but happy to take discussion back to the Board. Cherine will not be talking about enforceability. Board has submitted his comments and wishes to explain requirements. 

Strategic Plan & Operating plan --> There are three requirements: 1) they should be developed with community 2) they should be subject to community approval; 3) they should be consistent with purpose, mission, role as set out in articles and bylaws. In terms of operating plan, it should be consistent with 5-year strategic plan, developed by community and consistent with purpose, mission, role as set out in articles and bylaws. 

Budget --> It has to do with annual budget and operating plan.  It has to be developed with community. The community views must be heard, and taken seriously and timely. Board should balance community interest and avoid discrimination. Ability to align costs with revenues and not jeopardize stability of ICANN. There should be a formal process between Board and community to resolve issues before it is approved. We want to avoid budget paralysis – endless loop – we want to approve budget that is more properly allocated for current fiscal. We want to ensure strategic plan and operating plan are on target and that organization's ability to deliver on important initiatives are not jeopardize. We want to ensure stable operation of IANA functions. Board retain ability to approve expenses not budgeted. Board should be allow to act in case of unforeseen matters that put ICANN's mission at risk. Any expenses throughout fiscal year not the in strategic plan and not in articles, mission, bylaws should be subject to community objection. Community should have real involvement in operating plan and budget. Community would be able to object deviations from operating plan, mission etc. This is in alignment with Board's fiduciary duty and addresses community comments. There has to be a way to ensure that new initiatives are subject to objections. 

ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will prepare 

Groups presenting on upcoming calls (Monday & Tuesday):

  • AoC (Monday)
  • Board Removal (Monday-tentative)
  • Standard Bylaws/Fundamental Bylaws (Tuesday)
  • Individual Board removal (Tuesday)
  • Final two groups for Thursday 

Use Jonathan Zuck's document as a template. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to 

ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will prepare 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (10/1/2015 10:18) Welcome all to WP1 Meeting #24 on 1 October @ 11:00 UTC.  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (10:48) Hi evry body

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (10:55) Request to the chair

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (10:55) Good afternoon Geneva time

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (10:57) Pls when speaking kindly for the benefit of non  English  speaking people. Speak , clearly, slowly and separate sylabus  one from another.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (10:58) Pls kindly do not speak fast

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:59) hi all!

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:01) Pls Solwly

  Keith Drazek: (11:01) Hi all

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:02) Pls kindly and respectfully slow down the rythme

  cherine chalaby: (11:02) Hi everyone

  Greg Shatan: (11:02) Hello all.  Iwilltrytospeakslowlyandnotrunmywordstogether.  As a New Yorker, this is a significant effort!

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:02) dTks a lot

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:03) Evening all

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:05) Good

  Alan Greenberg: (11:05) will join audio  in a few minutes

  Mary Uduma: (11:05) Budget

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:05) Hope people from Dallas do the same

  Keith Drazek: (11:06) No one wants to work with me???

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:06) Unfortunately that is the case but do not take serious Keith

  Avri Doria: (11:06) Keith you are so formibable, we dont assume you need help.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:07) I'll help Keith

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:07) Sure

  Keith Drazek: (11:07) Thanks very much James!

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:07) You see Ladies, delecay in conducty<

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:08) Request to Jonathan

  Keith Drazek: (11:08) Too late! Alan volunteers...


  mike chartier: (11:09) nope

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:09) I'll volunteer for individual board removal

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:10) Robin your good enough :P

  Alan Greenberg: (11:10) I will volunteer for some things. Once you send the current list of volunteers to the list, I will see what I can help with.

  Greg Shatan: (11:11) I am in splendid isolation at the moment.

  Greg Shatan: (11:12) Maybe I should throw in "TOTAL RECALL" t-shirts and mugs.

  Keith Drazek: (11:12) Might need to come back to  Alan

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:13) bRENDA

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:13) my line is interrupted

  Matthew Shears: (11:14) happy to assist jordan on community forum

  Brenda Brewer: (11:15) Operator will speak with you Kavouss.

  Matthew Shears: (11:15) absolutely

  Avri Doria: (11:16) might as well have a Board person

  Avri Doria: (11:16) on model

  Samantha Eisner: (11:16) I'm available to help on analysis on Model as well

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:16) pls dial up again

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:16) I'd like to help on community forum and the model if possible, but given my overall obligations it's difficult for me to commit totally...

  Brenda Brewer: (11:17) Kavouss, operator is calling you.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:17) tks

  Avri Doria: (11:18) Model team ok with  using gooogle drive as work platform ?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:18) great suggestion, Avri.

  Matthew Shears: (11:19) happy to help on model as well if useful

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:19) @Avri: no experience with Google Drive, but I'll do my best

  Alan Greenberg: (11:19) Now just on this meeting

  Samantha Eisner: (11:19) Again, I'm willing to volunteer on Model.  I can also submit by email

  Keith Drazek: (11:20) LOL Jonathan

  Keith Drazek: (11:20) Congratulations!!

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:21) Each of you has scroll and zoom control of the Adobe display

  Alan Greenberg: (11:21) I will work on model and try on the two board removals, but my time is REALLY limited.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:21) Yes congrats and your obviously taking the CLO model of dedication!

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:24) GOt it, Alan

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:28) Let's allow Jonathan to get thru Areas of Divergence, then we'll take questions

  Matthew Shears: (11:31) anyone else lost audio?

  Matthew Shears: (11:31) anyone else lost audio?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:31) Nope

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:31) no

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:32) but it happened to me on an earlier call

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:33) the endless loop also could be tackled through Board dismissal, right?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:33) No.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:33) No weighting.

  Avri Doria: (11:34) we can't discriminate on our feeling about someone's degee of understanding

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:35) Board comments are in the Public COmment Excel sheet prepared by Staff

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:35) Los Angeles discussion happened after the PC tool was compiled

  Matthew Shears: (11:35) I believe that the Charter talks generally about stakeholders but not weighting

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:38) what Alan says sounds sensible

  Avri Doria: (11:39) well, one could argue that those registrants are also GNSO, but ...

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:39) well GNSO includes commercial and noncommercial registrants.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:39) The RySG said "Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN’s revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters"

  Avri Doria: (11:40) though it is not an argument i would use too often. aas it would also apply to the other OCs and that would be very difficult to argue.

  Matthew Shears: (11:40) at some point we talked about revisiting the consultation process prior to the budget approval - did we move that to WS2?

  Keith Drazek: (11:41) gTLD Registries, Registrars and Registrants have a legitimate concern about the impact on budgets, partifularly if decisions impact the revenue side of budgeting, not only expense side.

  Avri Doria: (11:41) Users are not rgistrants

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:41) there should be more weight for the taxman's perspective :P

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:41) Why does ALAC think "users" are not represented in the GNSO?

  Avri Doria: (11:42) they are importnat, but they are not particpating in  that role.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:42) I fully agree with Alan$

  Greg Shatan: (11:42) Registrants are a subset of users.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:43) In a full democratic process those who pay more, if really GNSO PAYS OR FUNDS MORE, should not HAVE HIGHER VOICE

  Avri Doria: (11:43) i agree that we should not work on that basis, but not recognizing the source of alll the momey and being shocked and outraged is a bit much.



  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:44)  tHAT WOULD BE AN ELDLESS DISCUSSION

  Matthew Shears: (11:44) would a more iterative and open budget development process mitigate the likelihood of budget veto and therefore concerns related to the lack of fiscal certainty etc that might ensue?

  Matthew Shears: (11:45) + 1 James

  Alan Greenberg: (11:45) @Robin, Users are represented on the GNSO, st least some users. But also, contracted parties have an effective veto on the GNSO taking any action.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:46) Also agree with James' caution against valuing some comments higher than others based on "who" submits, rather than content of the idea expressed.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:46) Apoogies I ran ahead

  Avri Doria: (11:47) yep the community could decide to tax us more becasue they wanted a higher budget.

  Alan Greenberg: (11:48) Pragmatically, comments from chartering organizations that may choose to not ratify the proposal, and on the Board, which ultimately has to approve, based on their perception of what is good for ICANN, will have to approve the new Bylaws.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:49) There is no need for special status or voting weight, but it makes sense that the "advice" or "recommendation" of the GNSO on budget and consequences of  increases should be especially considered by the other SO/AC in the community forum phase

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:49) Keith +1

  Alan Greenberg: (11:49) @Keith, I am not at all shocked that Registrars and Registries have a major concern over budgets and thhe possible impact of their businesses. I was concerned by the line that they are the contracted parties are the source of the revenue.

  Avri Doria: (11:50) the RySG has been pretty good about agreeing that most all the money comes frm registrants

  Avri Doria: (11:50) and registrants are part of the GNSO.

  Alan Greenberg: (11:51) @Avri, yes, and RrSG as well. That is why I was surprised to see it popping up again.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (11:51) @Alan -- the RySG comment said ""Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN’s revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters"

  Keith Drazek: (11:51) That's not what the comment said, Alan. It said that "fees from gTLD registrants fund 95%"

  Alan Greenberg: (11:52) Sorry Keith, you are right. But that, in my mind, should not give you control. But sorry for misquoting. Exhaustion has its drawbacks.

  Avri Doria: (11:52) well travel allocations are affected by the budget.

  Keith Drazek: (11:53) No problem, Alan. Totally understand.

  Avri Doria: (11:53) Registrants could be asked to pay higher fees so that more people could travel.

  Avri Doria: (11:53) but i think we should continue the benevolent posture of equal foooting despite that.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:54) No direct relation between voting weight and funding entities

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (11:55) It seems ACs could force GNSO to pay for additional travel and other resources.

  mike chartier: (11:55) I think having a budget decision less impacted by parochial interests is probably a good thing.

  Avri Doria: (11:56) just as i tink wee should continue the benvolent attitudes toward the other 2 OCs, dpesite the fact that they sometime vilify our processes.

  Avri Doria: (11:57) and that is becasue registrans is where the money can fe found.


  mike chartier: (11:59) I appologize but have to drop for another meeting

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:59) cHIRINE,

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:00) I'm with Mike I have to leave at the top of the hour

  Keith Drazek: (12:00) Thanks to Jorge for a constructive suggestion.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:00) May I request that you provide the information that I have asked

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:01) sorry Steve - my audio was cut when you made your question.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:01) I did not get it...

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:01) Sorry tat happened, Jorge.  Can you explain if "Community as a whole" implies Unanimous Consent?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:03) I feel that we need to carefully think over the decision-making process. And that community powers when exercised are supported by a large majority of the community as a whole, i.e. measured against the 7 SO/ACs

  Matthew Shears: (12:03) if we cannot come to strong consesnsus then we should offer choices

  Alan Greenberg: (12:04) I believe that I was the one to introduce the concept of a line item veto many moons ago. I have reversed my position since a line item veto gives you the ability to impact someone else's budget with no impact on yourself - it makes targetted  diswcrimanatory cuts too easy.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (12:04) Someone has an echo

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:04) I do not think that we should talk about unanimeous consensus due to the fact that therre would be some people that prefer one option to the other options but the summation or aggregate of the preference whether it is the first option or second option

  Greg Shatan: (12:04) Do we have a definition of "strong consensus" vs. "rough consensus" vs. "GNSO consensus"?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:04) In this reflection on decision-making we should try to be as inclusive as possible, in order to allow for the participation of all SO/ACs, and we should consider also options different to voting

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:05) echo

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:05) The above practice was used in ICANN for some SO OR AC

  Avri Doria: (12:05) Jorge, I agree that we should becasue that is the right thing to do.  But that does not change the underlying realties.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:05) @JOrge -- thanks for that clarification.   So you're talking about full community participation as a requirement of the decision making

  Matthew Shears: (12:06) charter talks about full consensus and consensus

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:06) Staff -- if you can, please isolate the line with the echo.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:08) What Chirine indicate is right as we should distinguish between the Annual BUDGET AND ABNNUAL PLAN AND THAT OF FIVE YEARS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FICVE YEARS IS TO SOME EXTENT ROLLING BUDGET

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:08) The principle underlying is quite simple: the Board is the existing body which represents the community. Its decisions should only be overturned by that same community as a whole, with such decision being supported by the largest majority possible. That's also why a true deliberative process within the community forum is needed

  Matthew Shears: (12:09) so operating budget and strategic plan are tied - annual budget is implementation of operating budget?

  Brenda Brewer: (12:09) Apologies for Echo.  It appears to be coming from Cherine's line.


  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:09) I repeat, E

  Avri Doria: (12:10) the Board has made it clear time and agan that they do not represent the commuity.  it is more of a paternalistic relationship, where they do what they think best.

  Greg Shatan: (12:10) How much support is there for a plan that would result in an "endless loop"?  I haven't seen much, if any.

  Matthew Shears: (12:11) I don't see how an endless loop scenario is realistic

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:11) @Avri: well, "repreentation" is an interesting concept (see Hannah Pitkins work on it)....

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:12) I think that we are in the midst of a process of making this relation of representation less symbolic and more accountabe - and we are taking decisions for that future situation

  Matthew Shears: (12:12) yes + 1 Steve - to see the document if possible

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:13) The community should provide some degree of manouvering ( x%) to the Board for unforeseen cases or events.This is done in all  other organisations

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:13) board requirements to fulfill fiduciary duty.

  Avri Doria: (12:14) but isn't the Board's view of the fiduciary repsonsiblity subject to the cast of characters on the Board/

  Greg Shatan: (12:14) Not to mention the GC and outside counsel.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:15) Just what I was thinking, Greg.

  Avri Doria: (12:15) a different Board might view those fiduciary reponsiblities differently.  that is one of the reasons for replacing a board, whether by election or boardicide

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:15) There should be distinction between community rejection and community request for reconsideration

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:15) @Avri: I have proposed in the list a question to our lawyers on whether there are means to subject "fiduciary duties" to objective standards/controls

  Greg Shatan: (12:16) When one firm has advised many iterations of the Board, there are natural tendencies for a consistent view to be taken, even if that view should evolve or be re-examined.

  Matthew Shears: (12:16) completely agree that the community needs far more say in the development of the budget

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:16) Cherine

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:17) What you said was also said by me few mintues ago .Allowing some degree of manouvering to the Board to act in an appropriate manner in cases that you mentioned

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:18) 12 minutes left on this call.

  Greg Shatan: (12:18) Early intervention will avoid many a later problem.  Since the budget reflects the plan, the plan is considerably more important than the budget.  If the plan is worked out, the budget should follow.

  Matthew Shears: (12:19) agree Greg

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:19) The community( legislator) should not have a micromanagemnt role to act in all cases rather it should maintain its overal supervision and oversighting

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:20) Grec

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:20) Both are totally interrelated none is more important than other

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:21) Note to all on WP1: our next call is Monday at 9:00 UTC

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:22) Steve

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:22) 09,00 utc OR 190,00 utc

  cherine chalaby: (12:22) Veto a budget is freezing anumber.  We should everything to reach agreement on the operating plan. The budget is just a finacial costing of the oprating plan.

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:22) 0 or 10 UTC PLS?

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:23) Is our next meeting on 09,00 0r 10,00 UTC?

  Brenda Brewer: (12:24) Next WP1 Meeting is 9:00 AM/UTC

  Kavouss.Arasteh: (12:24) tKS

  Brenda Brewer: (12:24) Calendar invites just sent with updated time.

  Matthew Shears: (12:25) so the oeprating plan and the strategic plan go hand in hand in our deliberations as well I assume

  Matthew Shears: (12:26) and we need to archtect a more inclusive and iterative process for the community, etc.

  Avri Doria: (12:27) isolation, compartmentalization

  Keith Drazek: (12:27) Thanks Steve. I'll step up for the following call.

  Keith Drazek: (12:28) Yep!

  Brenda Brewer: (12:28) Tuesday at 19:00 UTC

  Matthew Shears: (12:28) and the one after that?

  Keith Drazek: (12:28) That's fine. Tuesday is good. James and I will be ready for the standard and fundamental bylaws.

  Brenda Brewer: (12:29) Thursday, 8 Oct @ 5:00 AM/UTC

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:30) we can try to do individual board removal on Tuesday's call.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:31) wait til Mike hears that I volunteered us. :-)

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:31) bye all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:31) thanks for a very constructive call

  Matthew Shears: (12:31) Steve, likely thurs for forum

  Keith Drazek: (12:31) Thanks all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (12:31) thanks, Steve and all

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (12:32) Got it Matthew

  Mary Uduma: (12:32) Bye All

  Matthew Shears: (12:32) thanks

  • No labels