<div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>I apologise for this but I am running late on the second draft of the comment document, due to my Board meeting in my day job running over time. </div><div><br></div><div>I hope to have it to you in the next 30-90 mins, but I am sorry it is late. I will include a redline that shows the changes from the version circulated to the group for the last call.</div><div><br></div><div>In terms of our agenda, we are scheduled for a 90 mins call (the two hours was a placeholder).</div><div><br></div><div>Please advise additional or different agenda items <b>asap or at the very start of the call.</b></div><div><br></div><div>I propose the following:</div><div><br></div><div><b>1. Agenda review (2min)</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>2. Second draft of public comment report content (60 min)</b></div><div><br></div><div><i>We will review this content, and continue to deliberate on it and give instructions to drafters for changes required for the third version.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>At the end we should decide whether any is ready or nearly ready (subject to final changes) to share with the CCWG for its meeting on Tuesday.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><b>3. Balance among groups in the mechanism (10 min)</b><br clear="all"><div><br></div><div><i>Hopefully a short conversation - to check for consensus or disagreements on the following:</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>Is there consensus (pending the full legal advice which we will discuss on Monday's call) on the following propositions:</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>a) that the distribution of voting or decisional power in our community mechanism/process should be the same between the SOs (GNSO, ccNSO and ASO) and the ALAC and GAC, with lesser voting power for RSSAC and SSAC.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>b) that in the case of the structure being members or designators or similar, the representation should be structured such that the SGs in the gNSO, and the regions in the GAC, can be individually represented.</i></div><div><br></div><div><i>This conversation will tell us useful information about how to manage debate on this item in the CCWG. </i></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>4. Work Plan review and agenda for Monday 13th call (10 min)</b></div><div><br></div><div><i>A quick look at our work plan and any further items we need to deal with, and then a look at the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, which looks likely to need to cover:</i></div><div><i> </i><i><br></i></div><div><i>-</i><i> discussion with legal advisors on their advice delivered on 10 April </i></div><div><i>- agreement on basics of the mechanism to propose to deliver our community powers</i></div><div><i>- third draft content for review</i></div><div><i>- decision about whether any other calls/drafts needed in response to the legal advice or review</i></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>5. Any Other Business</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>