<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Jordan, Greg,<div><br></div><div>I've been thinking about our discussions today on clarifying what type of community right we are looking for with respect to the ultimate adoption of budget and strat plan and I'm wondering if there is a much easier fix than we thought. We talked about creating this right as right approval for the community <b><u>after</u></b> the board makes its decision, but I wonder if we are thinking about the ideal process backwards. The budget and strat plan that should be presented to a board vote for ultimate approval should be one that the community has <b><u>already</u></b> approved of. Like how the GNSO policy is made: what gets put before the board for approval and adoption is something that the community already signed-off on before it gets to the board for final approval. It might be just terminology - misusing words like "veto" or "reconsideration" or "rejection" - when what we are ultimately seeking is an approval right on these issues. Might this clarification of language and what we are ultimately seeking be helpful to designing it into the bylaws?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin</div></body></html>