13:57:51	 From Joke Braeken : hello everyone.
13:59:22	 From Stephen Deerhake : Hi Joke...
13:59:46	 From Kimberly Carlson : Cocktail “hour” is subjective
14:00:15	 From Naela Sarras : Hi all
14:00:25	 From Naela Sarras : this is a great time for LA indeed Stephen so happy to be here
14:00:47	 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome to today’s ccPDP Review Mechanism WG Teleconference on 26 August at 20:00 UTC. In the interest of time, there will be no roll call.  No apologies have been received. As a reminder, all calls are recorded; recordings posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/rAR1C). Please mute your phones and microphones when not speaking to avoid background noise and echoing.  This call is governed under ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior.  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
14:15:13	 From Patricio Poblete : Sounds good so far
14:15:36	 From Allan MacGillivray : Bernie - We're still thinking about what you said!
14:22:14	 From Eberhard Lisse : Do we need to build in some delay into the time between ICANN Board voting and implementation?
14:25:01	 From Patricio Poblete : Last time I asked about how would “admissibility” of a complaint be determined
14:25:24	 From Stephen Deerhake : Allan, would you be willing to take a stab at tweaking what's in the IRP to fit what we need?
14:28:43	 From Allan MacGillivray : Stephen - honestly, adapting the IRP to deal with delegations, transfers or retirements could be as simple as having one of the three panelists chosen for the case have experience with the ccTLD community.
14:29:41	 From Peter Koch : I’d avoid ‘applicant’ in the case of ccTLDs
14:30:42	 From Eberhard Lisse : Allan, I believe at least the two panelists selected by the two parties must have ccTLD knowhow/experience, if not all three.
14:31:08	 From Naela Sarras : My concern about what Eberhard and Bernard are saying is that building a delay a common cause for special cause situations feels like “punishment” for every case when the ones that may need to appeal should be a minority of the cases
14:31:44	 From Stephen Deerhake : Naela, your point is duly noted.
14:32:54	 From Stephen Deerhake : Peter, what's your preferred word if not 'applicant'?  I was referring to applying to IANA to manage a new code point in the 3166 table.
14:34:54	 From Stephen Deerhake : 'requestors' work for me --thank you Naela.
14:34:55	 From Peter Koch : the point is the ccTLD itself is not “applied for” and in my understanding, IANA would not make a decision between two or three parties but would send them back to settle the issue by themselves;
14:35:04	 From Eberhard Lisse : Naela, if we allow a process that “creates facts” which are difficult to reverse, this would not be a meaningful mechanism. But, if the PTI processes were to have such delays built in as a matter of course they would be applied in every case and there would not be an issue.
14:35:09	 From Peter Koch : ineed, ‘requestor’ sounds better
14:35:55	 From Stephen Deerhake : Naela, what if the local internet community is fractured?
14:36:13	 From Eberhard Lisse : the delay issue is not something we need to resolve today, I just wanted it recorded
14:37:15	 From Stephen Deerhake : Naela, your position is that IANA tells the competing interests in the LIC need to go sort it out and come back to us when you have come to a consensus?
14:37:58	 From Stephen Deerhake : (I'm not saying this is good or bad --just trying to flush out the thinking)
14:39:40	 From Naela Sarras : @Stephen that is correct. If there are competing requests to operate a TLD, IANA will ask both parties to work together
14:47:25	 From iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini : good points Bernie
14:48:19	 From Naela Sarras : I like what you are saying Bernard. This is very thoughtful
14:51:21	 From Naela Sarras : Agree with Allan, what is appealable and who can appeal
14:51:37	 From Naela Sarras : Those are central questions to this process
14:52:51	 From Eberhard Lisse : Cost is not a concern, if we can exclude frivolous appeals.
14:57:00	 From Bernard Turcotte : section 10 of the Bylaws for ccNSO
14:59:22	 From Bernard Turcotte : Alan, also just to be clear the ICANN IRP does not hear things within SO's, it just deals with Board decisions vs th3e Bylaws
14:59:40	 From iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini : was a great meeting Thanks Bernie !
14:59:44	 From Maarten Simon : Thanks all. Helpful session
15:00:03	 From Joke Braeken : bye all! thank you
15:00:03	 From Bernard Turcotte : ciao
15:00:10	 From iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini : enjoy your summer
15:00:11	 From Sean Copeland : Thank you
15:00:11	 From Naela Sarras : Thank you all
15:00:12	 From Jaap Akkerhuis : Bye all...
15:00:13	 From Francis Alaneme : good night