00:20:02	Kimberly Carlson:	Apologies received from:  Nick, Maarten, Nigel and Vanda
00:22:13	Bart Boswinkel:	That is a Bylaw requirement
00:22:25	Bart Boswinkel:	Also public comment
00:23:15	Bart Boswinkel:	Sorry, GAC needs to requested to provide an advise
00:23:54	Eberhard Lisse:	I am having connectivity issues (on my side)
00:34:21	Allan Macgillivray:	I'm having trouble lowering my hand
00:35:11	Stephen Deerhake:	That's odd...  Kimberly, do you have an electronic axe you can employ? ;-)
00:40:42	Allan Macgillivray:	Can you scroll up a bit?
00:40:59	Stephen Deerhake:	Thanks Kimberly.
00:41:00	Allan Macgillivray:	The other up = down
00:48:38	Allan Macgillivray:	I think Kim has a point and that we be prepared to discuss it further at some point.
00:52:53	Eberhard Lisse:	I think Kim has a point but it is absolutely out of scope for this Wg.
00:54:30	Peter Koch (DENIC eG):	would that impose cost on any of the additionally reviewed applicants?
00:55:30	Bart Boswinkel:	With respect to the Scope of the WG please look at section 1.3 of the charter: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/charter-wg-review-mechanism-cctlds-15mar17-en.pdf
00:55:31	Eberhard Lisse:	Peter, I don’t see how that could happen. In fact it would be cheaper
00:56:44	Peter Koch (DENIC eG):	if C appeals the delegation that want to A and B is silent, they still need to respond to the panel. Also, could B “win” the case despite not having appealed?
00:57:15	Peter Koch (DENIC eG):	s/want/went/
00:57:18	Stephen Deerhake:	Interesting question Peter.
00:58:26	Peter Koch (DENIC eG):	maybe not, the panel could just decide the decision to delegate to A was wrong and refer back to the process without actually picking a “winner”
00:59:40	Eberhard Lisse:	I will not be able to agree to third parties making use of this mechanism
01:01:18	Bart Boswinkel:	See also the underlying issue paper ( referenced in the Charter): Standing at review mechanism
1. Who will have standing at a review mechanism?
Some members in the community argue that only the [incumbent] ccTLD manager should have standing. Others have argued, at least raised, the point that potentially other parties should have standing, in particular parties with a significant interest.
As noted above, according RFC 1591 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 [emphasis added] can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB’s decisions will be binding. This seem to imply that others then the ccTLD manager may have standing.
01:02:13	Peter Koch (DENIC eG):	yes, agree, apologies for the extra noise
01:04:02	Eberhard Lisse:	In that I find myself rereading the Charter and find that an interpretation inserted by the Issue Manager with regards to Significantly Interested Parties is not acceptable
01:04:56	Bart Boswinkel:	I am sorry this was the charter as adopted by the Council and referenced with the call for volunteers and included in the Issue Manager
01:07:47	Eberhard Lisse:	Whether it was accepted by Council, and/ir eferenced in a call for volunteers does not matter to me, as it is wrong, and hence must be corrected.