00:16:56 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Hi 2 all 00:22:05 CMBARA: Hi all, from Republic of Congo 00:22:33 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Hi everyone. Guatemala here (6am) ;) 00:29:50 Hank Nussbacher - .il: Stephen, we have a problem with the terminology of territory in the revised rules 00:30:43 Stephen Deerhake -as; ccNSO Councilor: Please explain. Happy to hear this out. 00:30:50 Bart Boswinkel: Hi Hank, can you allude to your problem? 00:32:21 Hank Nussbacher - .il: ccNSO should follow the language of ISO3166-1 "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1: Country codes" which uses the word country and not territory. 00:33:53 Spencer Thomas: Why restricted to only way 00:33:57 Margarita Valdés: I agree with Hank about “territories”… by ccTLDs 00:34:32 Hank Nussbacher - .il: If ISO 3166 changes their language then we should follow as well, but we should not be ahead of ISO3166 on this 00:35:12 Margarita Valdés: +1 00:35:58 Mirjana Tasic: I am supporting Hank’s comment too 00:37:16 Demi Getschko: Hank + 1 00:37:33 Javier Rúa-Jovet: I fully support Hank. 00:37:35 Molehe Wesi: Supported Hank 00:41:46 Hank Nussbacher - .il: Demi, nice to meet you and thx for the kind words 00:43:57 Margarita Valdés: I think is just to talk about ccTLDs based in the ISO 3166-1, it doesn’t matter what kind of “geopolitically” consideration they have… 00:44:55 Hank Nussbacher - .il: Bart, I am sure that today no one wishes to change the meaning but 10 years from now is an eternity and much can change that we cannot envision today 00:45:41 Mirjana Tasic: +1 00:46:01 Bart Boswinkel: Hi Hank tha trappens anyway with the adjective “subdivisions” 00:51:32 Javier Rúa-Jovet: I voted 50% but would switch now to 33%. 00:51:46 Margarita Valdés: Yes, me too :-( 00:51:59 Stephen Deerhake -as; ccNSO Councilor: Thank you Javier and Margarita, 00:53:00 Margarita Valdés: But the big question is what we will do about the ccTLDs that are no show activity inside the ccNSO?? 00:53:13 Margarita Valdés: For ever? 00:53:26 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Maybe we should re- run that poll 00:53:33 Margarita Valdés: Agree 00:53:44 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Noted Javier and Margarita :) 00:53:44 Chris Disspain: Nick makes the point really well…On can argue whether 33 or 25 is better but 50 really acts as a block to creativity, innovation and progress. Remember members can always vote - it’s merely the quorum we are discussing 00:53:46 Laura Margolis: I think is also an opportunity to get the ccTLDs engaged 00:55:03 Margarita Valdés: @laura, yes, but inactivity can block actions needed… 00:55:06 Chris Disspain: It is not the quorum’s job to be used to engage members - it is the members job to engage other members 00:55:28 Margarita Valdés: +1 00:55:50 Laura Margolis: @Chris yes I agree too. But quorum is important too 00:56:17 Chris Disspain: I agree Laura… I just think it is important in a different way 00:57:04 Chris Disspain: Excellent idea 00:57:24 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Agree with poll re-run 00:57:37 Margarita Valdés: Me too 00:57:56 David McAuley (Verisign): Thanks Alejandra and Javier - good idea 00:57:57 Mirjana Tasic: Agree with poll re-run 00:59:46 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Sorry 4 mic ! 01:00:11 David McAuley (Verisign): The next slide relates - what to do when quorum not met 01:00:35 Nick Wenban-Smith .UK ccNSO council: +1 Demi's point on the additional requirements for regional minimum participation, I hadn't appreciated that for North America that's a requirement that 50% vote in order to reach a quorum but for EU it's like 2% of the members 01:01:28 Hank Nussbacher - .il: yes I agree to poll 5 rerun 01:01:39 David McAuley (Verisign): Remember this is quorum only - not actual vote on issue's substance 01:01:46 Margarita Valdés: Yes 01:02:01 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Understood David- thx 01:02:55 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: 25% of 172 is 43 01:02:55 ai-chin Lu: I think Jiankang Yao means on majority decision.. 01:03:13 Hank Nussbacher - .il: of course not a formal vote - this is just so ccNSO has a general idea of which way the membership are leaning 01:04:17 Margarita Valdés: Great point Alejandra!! :-) 01:04:29 Laura Margolis: Yes, good point 01:04:45 Jenifer Lopez / ccTLD .pa: Good point Alejandra. 01:05:08 Margarita Valdés: If we got more than the quorum, is the best world.. 01:05:18 Margarita Valdés: :-) 01:06:25 Marie-Noemie Marques: IMO 25% for the quorum is fine Otherwise it will be difficult to work or "innovate" 01:06:58 Hank Nussbacher - .il: There r only 6 entities in the NA region so I think "at least 3 per region" should be lowered to "at least 2" 01:07:05 Chris Disspain: if there is concern that members are fully briefed that a vote is happening and they have an opportunity to vote, that is a concern that can and should be fixed by high level is communications…I don’t think the quorum is the right tooo to use to ensure 01:07:09 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Let's do another poll ;) 01:07:16 Margarita Valdés: Yes! 01:07:31 Marie-Noemie Marques: yes 01:08:04 Stephen Deerhake -as; ccNSO Councilor: Hank, I think 3 for NA would work. 01:09:30 Chris Disspain: so it is clear the majority thinks that 50% is too high 01:13:05 Demi Getschko: If half of NA region votes do nor appear, no decision would be taken if the minimal of 3 members remain... 01:13:51 Hank Nussbacher - .il: Stephen, with just 6 entities in NA and requiring 3 when other regions have dozens and can easily reach 3 voting members, it makes it that a single region can block a vote 01:14:04 Marie-Noemie Marques: +1 Nick 01:14:35 Stephen Deerhake -as; ccNSO Councilor: Between AS, PR, CA, and US I think the NA region would meet the requirement. They are all active participants in the ccNSO (well, .US less so). 01:15:05 ai-chin Lu: I think question 7 and 8 need to see all together, because we have already lower the threshold, if we have option2 then it seems the decision so rough 01:15:56 Hank Nussbacher - .il: Stephen, is AS on this Zoom? 01:16:39 Hank Nussbacher - .il: That was a :-) 01:20:33 Stephen Deerhake -as; ccNSO Councilor: Hank, I represent .AS yes. 01:22:13 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Nice! 01:23:38 Svitlana Tkachenko: “written request” means email ? 01:24:26 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Yes Svitlana, but I will note it ;) 01:26:09 Chris Disspain: how long is note open for? 01:26:16 Chris Disspain: Vote not note 01:26:49 Chris Disspain: cool...Thnx 01:27:52 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Hank makes a good point 01:28:09 Laura Margolis: +1 Hank 01:29:01 Nick Wenban-Smith .UK ccNSO council: Whilst I am sympathetic to Hank's point about more time, there are some constraints around the Empowered Community decisional participant which just don't work unless the time frame is quite short 01:29:34 Margarita Valdés: +1 01:30:05 Demi Getschko: with the proposed voting rules, after 10 members request veto, without quorum in the first round, the same 10 members could make the voto valid in the second round with just 10 votes... 01:31:24 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Noted Demi 01:32:59 David McAuley (Verisign): +1 @ Stephen 01:33:26 David McAuley (Verisign): will be good to gather again, hopefully soon 01:33:51 Javier Rúa-Jovet: San Juan! 01:38:25 David McAuley (Verisign): I think Bart and Irina make good points - speaking as member not as chair of Rules Subgroup 01:40:14 David McAuley (Verisign): agree with Chris and Stephen about longer term issue - speaking as member 01:44:22 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: GRC Sub-group email: ccnso-grc-sg@icann.org Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/OAA_Cg 01:44:27 Alejandra Reynoso .gt - ccNSO Council: Materials from this webinar can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Subgroup+webinar+on+Rules+-+26+August+@12%3A00+UTC 01:46:29 Jenifer Lopez / ccTLD .pa: Thank you bye