Attendees:
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).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5rf5fslzrp/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp1-01oct15-en.mp3
Agenda
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
Notes
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 wp1@icann.org
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
Feedback:
- 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 wp1@icann.org
ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will prepare
Documents Presented
- To Dublin and beyond.pdf (slide 4)
- Budget and Strategic Plan Veto-PC2[1].docx | Budget and Strategic Plan Veto-PC2[1].pdf
- Cherine's Comments reBudget.docx | Cherine's Comments reBudget.pdf
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: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
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...
Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:09) PLS INDICATE HOW MANY HAVE COMMENTED AND OUT OF WHICH THE PROPS ,CONES AND CONCERNS
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: (11:43) tHERE MUST BE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT INRRESPECTIVE OF WHO FUND HOW MUCH
Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:44) sECOND pLS RAKE AWAY THE NOTING OF REDISTRIBUTION OF VOTING WEIGHTS
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.
Kavouss.Arasteh: (11:57) THE QUORUM AS DEFINED IN ccwg REPORT IDS VAGUE, UNCLEAR
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) eVERY THIS IS CONNECTED TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
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
