00:31:17	Kimberly Carlson:	Welcome to today’s ccPDP3 on Review Mechanism on 19 May at 20:00 UTC.
00:31:19	Bart Boswinkel:	Hi All
00:31:25	iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini:	Hi everyone
00:31:58	Jaap Akkerhuis:	hi all
00:44:49	iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini:	I agree with Ebehard position though I am not a member
00:45:52	Sean Copeland:	I am late to the call, so I didn’t hear all of Bernard’s comments… what is the justification for saying binding can’t occur?  I apologize if it was addressed
00:51:26	Sean Copeland:	So Dr E is probably be right, it boils down to semantics, I would argue adjust the term put it to the table, and when it comes to an actual court case, let a court inform the board a model has been defined ( what we are doing ) and that’s the best thought out course.  At the end of the day, a lawyer gives an opinion, a judge defines law.
01:10:15	Sean Copeland:	Can we wrap it around the concept of ex aequo et bono?
01:14:05	Eberhard Lisse:	what does that mean, Sean?
01:14:12	Kimberly Carlson:	The doc/memo was circulated on 16 March
01:15:34	Sean Copeland:	In trade law, it the concept of things being right and fair and can allow for the sidestepping of law when the law doesn’t quite work right.   My very overly non legal simplification
01:16:07	Eberhard Lisse:	ex aequo et bono basically means fundamental fairness and review right from the beginning
01:16:18	Kimberly Carlson:	Just you Bart
01:22:16	Sean Copeland:	I think that makes sense Stephen
01:30:55	Sean Copeland:	Thanks everyone