00:16:28 Patricio Poblete: Did you say “retirement”? 00:19:04 Kimberly Carlson: Wiki from last meeting: https://community.icann.org/x/nQRACQ 00:20:39 Kimberly Carlson: Jamboard link: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1MBopxNRfIz_60NesP6Kfv5wwxjsGG_SUVN_XFuKp69A/edit?usp=sharing 00:23:06 Maarten Simon: Sorry for joining late 00:23:51 Stephen Deerhake: Patricio, "retirement" in the context that the Proposed Policy is going up on the ICANN Website in a few hours for a final public review. 00:24:54 Joke Braeken: It is already online: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccpdp3-1-retirement-cctlds-2021-03-03-en 00:26:31 Kim Davies: The point of my request that the policy be ‘timeless’ was that if there is superseding policy coming out fo the ccNSO in the future, it is automatically applicable instead of locking the RM to RFC 1591 and FOI specifically 00:27:37 Stephen Deerhake: Thank you Joke. The last time I looked it was not indexed on the "Public Comments' page.... 00:30:18 Peter Koch: it remains unclear whether 1591 was developed through IETF procedure: the RFC editor has always been an independent entity and at that time, Jon “was’ the IANA and the RFC Editor at the sam etime 00:33:31 Stephen Deerhake: Peter, you raise an interesting historical point regarding the likely "Out of band" development of RFC1591... 00:33:35 Kim Davies: @Peter It wasn’t developed using the IETF process, but that is moot, because its interpretation as policy is a retroactive decision that was made later (i.e. during the ICANN era) on the basis that it was broadly recognized as such 00:34:08 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: bart you say an arbitration external group 00:34:47 Eberhard Lisse: It does not matter, one little bit, how the RFC was developed, other than for purists, because most ccTLD Managers have accepted it as the Founding Document. 00:34:57 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: thank you 00:36:28 Peter Koch: thanks, Kim - the point is that IETF cannot claim change control, essentially nobody can; I’d contest that ICANN ‘legitimized’ RFC 1591, at least my memory of discussions re: ICP-1 goes in a different direction 00:37:21 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: ok thanks 00:41:35 Stephen Deerhake: +1 Peter. 00:42:43 Stephen Deerhake: @Kim: "Future Proof" meaning a standalone policy not dependent upon RFC1591/FOI then? 00:45:23 Kim Davies: @Peter The topics that RFC 1591 cover where cleaved off into ICANN by virtue of IETF-ICANN MOU in 2000 so I think the IETF would decline to get involved in any subsequent change as it is out of their scope unless it documenting decisions that originated from within the ICANN sphere. 00:45:36 Kim Davies: @Stephen As much as that is possible, I think that is desirable 00:46:07 Stephen Deerhake: @Kim, thank you for that clarification. 00:47:25 Stephen Deerhake: @Kim I agree with you. 00:54:06 Patricio Poblete: agree with Nigel 00:54:58 Eberhard Lisse: I don’t care what we call it, my point is that whatever we call it will be a placeholder name, not a definition 01:04:14 Peter Koch: @kim re: IETF, except when IETF re-claimed ‘special use domain names’ … 01:06:55 Stephen Deerhake: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3910d8fd-87f4-414b-a56a-8dababa2a4e4 01:08:45 Nigel Roberts: The majority identified the conceptual distinction between three different systems of law which could apply to an internationally commercial agreement with an arbitration clause. the law governing the substance of the dispute (usually the law applicable to the contract from which the dispute has arisen); the law governing the agreement to arbitrate; and the law governing the arbitration process. 01:09:17 Nigel Roberts: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3910d8fd-87f4-414b-a56a-8dababa2a4e4 01:17:05 Stephen Deerhake: Extra time! My apologies, but we are making progress. 01:17:49 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: I have mediation experience and some arbitration 01:18:56 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: but I am not member I am just representative from ALAC in this group 01:18:58 Maarten Simon: UDRP is no arbitration (at least according to Dutch law) 01:19:16 Nick WS, Nominet UK: +1 Maarten 01:19:51 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: yes maarten 01:35:46 Allan MacGillivray: I agree with Bernie. I think that an 'appeal' beyond an independent review would be too much. 01:41:15 Nick WS, Nominet UK: I had always understood IRP to effectively be the final appeal 01:41:38 Eberhard Lisse: IRP doesn’t matter, we can write our own ticket :-)-O 01:43:01 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: but my vote shall not be totally consider . 01:45:32 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: i am , as representing registrants and users for the safe and fair side.. reason why I got 3 but I am not member od ccTLD. 01:46:18 Kimberly Carlson: Next call is 17 March at 05:00 UTC. 01:46:40 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: very productive meeting , thank you all 01:46:58 Bernard Turcotte: Bye all 01:47:03 Peter Koch: Bye! 01:47:17 Anna Karakhanyan: Thank you everyone and bye 01:48:02 Kimberly Carlson: Thank you, bye all 01:48:09 Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: nice week 01:48:10 Joke Braeken: Thanks all. bye 01:48:12 Nick WS, Nominet UK: Ciao all! 01:48:17 Allan MacGillivray: Night all. 01:48:31 Maarten Simon: Bye 01:48:35 Patricio Poblete: bye