I’m happy with Nick’s proposed changes. I presume then that the plan of the day is to push this one forward on its own (a change to a fundamental bylaw, which will require an Approval Action), and follow on with the Bylaw changes involving standard Bylaws (which will require a Rejection Action)? Best Regards, /Stephen PS: With regards to the proposed fundamental Bylaw change, it would be nice to have this approved by the Board prior to ICANN65 so we can have an Approval Action Community forum there to explain to the other SO/AC’s, as well as the ICANN Community at large, what this is all about… From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 14:53 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] ccNSO letter to the Board regarding Bylaws change Dear Colleagues, Here is a draft for our letter to the ICANN Board regarding the need to change ICANN Bylaws and make sure that we can start IANA Function Review even if no ccNSO non-member ccTLD representative can be found: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ce-sWgXEY7yIRsZlPqu10TrFgXpKRkZXksIqc5pA... If you remember explanation from ICANN Legal, the process would be: 1. We write a letter to the Board explaining what needs to be changes and why, 2. The Board instructs ICANN Legal to look into the issue, 3. ICANN Legal proposes changes, 4. Due process (public comments etc.), 5. Board decision -> Approval Action, 6. The Bylaws are changed (if we have support from other SO/ACs). However, in the letter we already propose some wording: we should try to make it as neutral as possible, i.e. even if all three mebers are from non-member ccTLDs (if ccTLDs start leaving the ccNSO, for example), it should not be a stopper. Please suggest your improvements directly in the Google doc by 12 April. Kind regards, ]{atrina