<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Dear DT Members,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Please see the following proposed agenda from Steve DelBianco for our meeting on Thursday, 29 September at 1730 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Please also see the attached revised draft report for discussion as well as the notes from our last call below.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Kind regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Proposed Agenda:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>1. Roll call/statements of interest</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>2. Review agenda</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>3. DT to discuss revised draft report as sent by co-chair, with edits from Ed Morris (attached)</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>4. DT to discuss recommendation for Council voting thresholds for nominations and decisions under the new Bylaws</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>5. DT to hold a consensus call on the revised draft report</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>6. Next steps to finalize the report and send to the GNSO Council</span><span style='font-family:Calibri'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team, Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 1300 UTC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>1. Statements of Interest</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Action Item:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> Although Drafting Teams are not specifically referenced in the GNSO Operating Procedures, for the sake of consistency it will be helpful if DT members could provide SOIs if they have not already done so. Staff noted that these also are in a specific format that is different from those used in other groups, such as the CCWG-Accountability.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>2. DT to discuss draft report -- to facilitate discussion note the table on the last page that arrays the 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Action Items:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>1.</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Staff will check to see if all references to GNSO accounted are for? Incorporate revisions from Steve M., except for reference to the number (84).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>2.</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve DelBianco and staff will produce the next iteration of the draft Report for the DT to review and discuss.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Discussion Notes:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Who</span></u></b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> should speak for the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community – should it be GNSO Council or the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies? </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Concern on the "Who" question is dealt with on page 2. Just before 2. How. References to GNSO Council and GNSO Supermajority. Of the references in the Bylaws. Our conclusions was that those Bylaws do suggest that the GNSO Council should act in those 17 instances that were identified, not for other instances.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Need to record the level of support for the recommendations.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: On Steve M.'s edits, my perception was that we had majority agreement that the Council would speak for the GNSO in EC instances and others.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Section 11 and 11.2 -- the EC in the new Bylaws includes the GNSO, and in the definition in Section 11 includes, but is not limited to, the GNSO Council.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: Not convinced that we have agreed on whether the Bylaws need to be amended in order for the Council to speak on behalf of the GNSO in areas other than on PDP. They do not say that the Council cannot do more than just managing the PDP. There are other processes that the Council does manage.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: This group should decide whether Council for speak for the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: Just "Unless the Bylaws are further amended" may or may not be necessary.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: We will rewrite the paragraph.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: What I think we are prepared to assume is that the 17 instances should be that the Council speaks for the GNSO -- that is what the Bylaws say now and thus, "unless the Bylaws are further amended."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Marika Konings: The Bylaws do not limit the GNSO Council to policy development only, at least not as it is currently written, does it?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Nothing in the Bylaws that limit the GNSO Council to managing the PDP, but nothing that says the GNSO Council should speak for the GNSO. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Straw Poll: Straw poll: Is our DT recommending that Council speak for GNSO in new powers for EC?</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>“Yes” votes: Farzaneh Badii, Steve DelBianco, David Maher, Ed Morris, Matthew Shears, Darcy Southwell</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>“No” votes: Amr Elsadr, Tony Harris, Steve Metaliz</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Straw Poll Results: 6 to 3 majority; significant minority did not agree.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>NomCom Role and Issues Still to be Addressed</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: We do have to acknowledge unresolved issues that we haven't addressed. There also is the question of NomCom appointee roles. There is a lot of work we should do ideally. May want to include a recommendation that another group should follow up on the work we have done, such as the GNSO Review WG.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: Agree with Amr.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Darcy Southwell: Agree with Amr. Not nearly enough time to thoroughly discuss some issues.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Agree with Amr. Focus on 30 September and be realistic about what we can accomplish. My recommendation is that the report flesh out the issues and recommend they be discussed and decided by stakeholder groups and constituencies within the GNSO. Please reflect this in notes. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>How</span></u></b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> should the GNSO Council or Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies arrive at their decisions – voting thresholds with or without requiring majorities in each house?</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Originally had the Names Council with 7 constituencies each with 1 vote.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: Re: NCAs. Reached out to 2 of 3 current NCAs. If our report suggests that the NCAs are exluded the current NCAs will vote against our report. Bylaws state that the NCAs must act on equal footing with other Council. Section 11.3.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>David Maher: I agree with that.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: I think the reference in the Bylaws is to the non-voting member.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Degree of support for the alternative voting structure -- majorities and supermajorities of Councilors, not each House. Doesn't include votes for the NCA.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>David Maher: I do not support this alternative voting scheme.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: Agree with David and vote "no".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Darcy Southwell: Agree with David and vote "no".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: Tying this with the NCA issue. Not sold with the NCA being involved, but we haven't had a thorough discussion. If I am undecided on that I can't weigh in on the voting scheme.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Marika: Decision making -- Council resolution reference to "consensus" is assumed to refer to the definition in the Working Group Guidelines.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: So we don't have consensus on the "who" question.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Marika: There is no hard line between the levels of support.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: I think we are following the guidelines as close as we can.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Record my vote as "abstain" since my constituency doesn't think these decisions should be taken by the Council. This is an interesting and important option.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Tony Harris: Echo what Steve M. said. I would abstain right now.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Matthew Shears: Vote "no" at this time.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Farzaneh Badii: Vote "no".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Table on page 5: 3 decision types against two potential Council voting thresholds that are already reflected in current ICANN bylaws for the GNSO</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: Move investigations -- need 3 decision participants to agree.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Move into the second row.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: 1/3 of any House sufficient for an inspection request. decisions high, nomination middle, inspection requests low.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: Higher than simple majority threshold for nominations and decisions on EC petitions, and less than majority of each house for initiating inspection requests.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Questions -- What nominations are we talking about?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Example is the nomination for a liaison to the CSC, others.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve M.: Could apply to a wide range of things that come on a spectrum. Second question -- distinction between the first and second row of the table. Who decisions and what decisions. First row is who, second row is instruction.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Amr: Believe that Council should make appointments generally via some sort of consensus, not simple majority.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Ed Morris: 60% threshold? Amr: That is better, but would prefer a supermajority.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>·</span><span style='font-size:6.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve D.: Need a higher threshold for EC rep per Steve. M.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>3. Timing of Final Meeting</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Action Item:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> Staff will send a Doodle poll for other times on Wednesday the 28</span><sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>th</span></sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> and Thursday the 29</span><sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>th</span></sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>. Note: the GNSO Council meeting is 2000-2200 on the 29</span><sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>th</span></sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> so this time slot will be avoided.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>