00:07:22 Kimberly Carlson: Welcome to today’s ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group Teleconference on 7 October at 20:00 UTC. In the interest of time, there will be no roll call. As a reminder, all calls are recorded and transcribed; recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/ggjQC). 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 00:09:04 Vanda Scartezini: hi sorry to be little late.. 00:10:08 Kimberly Carlson: HI Vanda, chair is reviewing item #2 - carve-out process 00:10:24 Vanda Scartezini: thanks listen 00:15:50 Jaap Akkerhuis: Apologies for being late; by accident I joined another call :-( 00:19:54 Stephen Deerhake: Jaap -- You cannot work two calls at once? ;-) 00:21:00 Stephen Deerhake: Nick: Long live .gb! ;-) 00:21:09 Vanda Scartezini: kkkk 00:24:59 Jaap Akkerhuis: That is wha I was trying to say as well 00:25:21 Kim Davies: Language -> ICANN codified the rules under which future exceptionally reserved delegations may be considered in 2000 in Resolution 00.74. Certain domains were delegated on the basis of being “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency prior to this date. These domains were “.UK”, “.AC”, “.GG” and “.JE”. Of these, “.GG” and “.JE” are now listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard and therefore qualify normally. The remaining two domains that are grandfathered under their original eligibility are “.UK” and “.AC”. 00:26:29 Peter Koch: I’d consider that resolution a one-off, not a firm rule, but we might even see that in the nit so distant future … 00:27:10 Peter Koch: s/nit/not/; 00:28:57 Kim Davies: It’s guidance that has now been applied for over 20 years, and is referenced routinely when we receive applications that pertain to these codes, so its hard to say it is a one-off. But it is well within the remit of the ccNSO to develop superseding policy. 00:33:18 Peter Koch: @KIm Davies: maybe is misread, but to the best of my knowledge there has not yet been a ccTLD delegation based on the ‘exceptionally reserved’ list after EU 00:34:07 Stephen Deerhake: @Peter I believe you are correct. 00:34:18 Kim Davies: @Peter correct but there certainly have been applications, and we use the definitions in the 2000 board resolution to inform eligibility. 00:36:02 Stephen Deerhake: @Kim I should know this but I presume .EU is under contract? 00:36:29 Irina Danelia: Government? 00:36:53 Peter Koch: @Kim Davies: we might want to take the details off line, but that appears to have been ‘ineligibility’ in essence for the lack of ‘new’ reservations? 00:37:35 Kim Davies: lets take it offline, dont want to distract from bernie’s discussion 00:38:36 Peter Koch: ack 00:43:05 Eberhard Lisse: RFC1591: 00:43:08 Eberhard Lisse: The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. 00:49:39 Vanda Scartezini: good point Eberhard 00:50:18 Vanda Scartezini: happens small countries can also have such conflict inside “authorities" 00:50:53 Peter Koch: two ministries in the same govt appears to be soluable, two competing governments maybe less so 00:51:51 Eberhard Lisse: Peter, you could not be more wrong. ML is another example 00:52:45 Maarten Simon: What if an applicant states support from the local community (including government) and members of the community want to contest such support ? 00:52:55 Vanda Scartezini: Eberhard is right it is more common than you can imagine in developing countries even big ones 00:54:58 Eberhard Lisse: Maarten, I think IFO has a process for testing LIC support. But, the loosing applicant can appeal that, in my view. 00:56:35 Peter Koch: I couldn’t be more optimistic, maybe; if it’s already difficult on national level, doesn’t make it esier for different nation states claiming authority over the same territory; point is: no ICANN mechanism is going to solve that 00:57:24 Maarten Simon: Eberhard, I am afraid that a government wants to be able to challenge the support and an opportunity to appeal 00:59:11 Eberhard Lisse: Maarten, sure. but not on this Policy unless there will be consensus to permit so. Governments are not “invloved” unless they are applying themselves. 01:10:02 Eberhard Lisse: No, we do NOT have to explain anything to governments. There is a structure in the PDP for GAC comment. 01:12:50 Eberhard Lisse: Maarten feel free to email to the list, and we can point you to the RFC and the FoI report, which may informative :-)-O 01:14:04 Maarten Simon: Thanks Eberhard I have read it but do not know it by heart 01:14:38 Eberhard Lisse: Neither do the authors :-)-O 01:14:51 Allan MacGillivray: Won't that conflict with watching the US election returns? 01:15:05 Vanda Scartezini: thanks to all for this discussion.. 01:15:13 Eberhard Lisse: On a Wednesday? 01:15:55 Bernard Turcotte: bye all 01:16:01 Joke Braeken: Bye all 01:16:02 Allan MacGillivray: Bye everyone 01:16:03 Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet UK: bye all 01:16:03 Kimberly Carlson: Thanks all, bye 01:16:06 Maarten Simon: bye 01:16:06 Sean Copeland: Bye everyone