Hello all!

Did I have the audio?

Yes, you did!

Hello and welcome to the Joint Meeting of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils. My name is Caitlin Tubergen, and I will be monitoring this chat room. If you would like me to read a question aloud during this session, please start with <QUESTION> and end with <QUESTION>. Text outside of these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud. Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Hello 2 @All

Hi all!

:) THanks Katrina!

Can you repeat the name of the proposed ccNSO Liaison to the GNSO IDN ePDP?

Alireza Saleh

Thanks Bart!

Congrats Alireza

Still to be appointed by the ccNSO Council

Thanks!

Current Schedule is as Ai-Chun said to have an Intertim report by December this year

Thanks Bart

If anybody could give me insight into the difference between per-ccTLD vs. per-terriroty, it would be appreciated. Any examples?

is it the highest bidder :)?

Apologies for late arrival!

what happens when 2 entities do not agree - is it an abstention vote in that case?

Welcome Stephanie!

@ Mark: In addition to what Katrina said, in some Territories there are over 10 IDNccTLDs

.UA .GE at least

Thank you, I was thinking about examples like the India case and so on.

@ Maxim,

In principle the first members will hold the vote, up and until in Territory they have reached agreement.

@Bart, thanks for the clarification of the principle, it is important.

Bart, this is interesting, thanks a lot.

(And important of course)

Agreed @Jeff, Annebeth was a godsend!

@Bart @Maxim, but just for clarity, the IDN could independently join the ccNSO and be their own legal person with a vote?

Further to that — can IDN join if there is already a cc from the same territory? And IDN and cc both want to be the vote holder?

(Sorry if the question is stupid, am trying to grasp the idea!)

@ Mark: the IDNccTLD manager can join independently and participate and vote, except in case both the IDn and ASCII ar remember and vote Council election, Board member nomination, and final vote on policy recommendations

@Bart that is very helpful, thank you.

or at least to try to limit it to 200 pages :)

:)))

200 pages? That would traumatize them. 300 is the shortest length possible.

:-)

@ Tatiana, as soon as the membership definition is adjusted, IDNccTLD Managers can become members, just like the (ASCII) ccTLD Manager

@Bart, thank you so much

is RDAP in those texts? (WHOIS is going to die soon)

Hi. Could someone post a link to this presentation or a link to the CENTR response

Off Topic: How on zoom do you get your slides to be your background?

Jeff, I have the very same question!

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360046912351-Sharing-slides-as-a-Virtual-Background

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360046912351-Sharing-slides-as-a-Virtual-Background

Wow thanks so much

You should join one of the use of cams and presentation sessions Jonathan Zuke runs for ALAC/At-Large

After selecting share, select advanced (then you can share ppt as a virtual background)

@Tatiana: with respect to second part of your question. As said to Maxim, the Manger that is member first will intitally hold the vote up and until the parties involved have resolved the issue. One important factor in the internal, local discussion is the role of the Significant Interested Parties ( formerly known as Local Internet Community). The thinking in 2011-2012 when the original proposals were developed, is that the SIP will force the two to sort it out in territory

Please share the URL for the presentation

SIP includes the governemnt

Bart, massive thanks!

Thanks for that link. That's great!

I will post the recording as well as slides shortly: https://community.icann.org/x/MAFACQ

Thanks

does illegal include copyright issues?

in this context

This apply only for Europe or is already being applied worldwide?

Juan, this hasn’t been applicable yet, it’s a proposal for regulation.

This slide as a backdrop is the closest thing to "being in the room" I've seen yet... Very cool...

But it will certainly have extraterritorial reach

Outside Europe

@Maim, yes - see Recital 12.

MAxim - sorry.

AAGGHH . Breathe, Maxim. Even.

@Marie, thanks for the clarification

Europe never ends :) from the legal perspective ?

quite worrisome proposals...

even “whois like” will be better than WHOIS

Accurate

being the key word huh

(Draft DSA - Recital 12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of “illegal content” should be defined broadly and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information... that under the applicable law is either itself illegal... or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as ... the non-authorised use of copyright protected material ...”

@Maxim - as you can see, they say “provide efficient access”. They do not refer to any specific technology

You're a star, Marie.

then it will still be relevant

Nope. Just spent far too long on the DSA lately ;-)). Joys of Brussels.

Clarification: the tools being developed by the EUIPO (nascent) are different from the draft Toolbox (Commission Recommendation).

Thank you Peter for that presentation!

Thanks Peter...and I loved the way you floated around the presentation itself!

Thank you, Peter!

Byron +1

That’s great to hear. Thank you. Centralised base sounds good.

thanks, all!

Thx Peter - Very useful

Again, here is the link to the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/MAFACQ

@Jordan that is in keeping with ATRT3 Recommendations of course

@Stephanie - Does that mean no implementing reviews already done?

Or does that mean no new reviews?

Have to run to my next meeting, nice to see you!

Bye for now then and do all look at the Board Approved ATRT3 Recommendations that are now to be implemented re that Review of Reviews

No new ones :)

The Prioritisation of Implementation is also Rec from ATRT3

ok. I get the no new reviews. BUt we would have lots of unhappy people if we didn't implement ATRT3, cct-rt, SSRT2

Especially since the board approved them

Thinking out loud, I wonder whether we should use a one year hiatus on reviews to revolutionarily reinvent how they are done, so they are not so burdensome.

@Kurt, a good thought

@Kurt +1

Thank you all, thank you Katrina

There has to be an improvement on how reviews are executed.

Thanks everyone! Bye all!

Thank you all, thanks Katrina!

Thank you all. Great session.

thanks all

Thank you all

Thank you all!