
22:54
Hello all!

22:57
Did I have the audio?

23:02
Yes, you did!

23:04
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.

23:12
Hello 2 @All

23:15
Hi all!

23:17
:) THanks Katrina!

28:34
Can you repeat the name of the proposed ccNSO Liaison to the GNSO IDN ePDP?

28:48
Alireza Saleh

28:55
Thanks Bart!

29:01
Congrats Alireza

29:02
Still to be appointed by the ccNSO Council

29:05
Thanks!

30:23
Current Schedule is as Ai-Chun said to have an Intertim report by December this year

30:41
Thanks Bart

33:16
If anybody could give me insight into the difference between per-ccTLD vs. per-terriroty, it would be appreciated. Any examples?

34:11
is it the highest bidder :)?

35:31
Apologies for late arrival!

35:44
what happens when 2 entities do not agree - is it an abstention vote in that case?

35:47
Welcome Stephanie!

35:57
@ Mark: In addition to what Katrina said, in some Territories there are over 10 IDNccTLDs

36:11
.UA .GE at least

36:40
Thank you, I was thinking about examples like the India case and so on.

38:26
@ Maxim,

39:10
In principle the first members will hold the vote, up and until in Territory they have reached agreement.

39:45
@Bart, thanks for the clarification of the principle, it is important.

40:08
Bart, this is interesting, thanks a lot.

40:15
(And important of course)

40:15
Agreed @Jeff, Annebeth was a godsend!

40:38
@Bart @Maxim, but just for clarity, the IDN could independently join the ccNSO and be their own legal person with a vote?

41:38
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?

41:50
(Sorry if the question is stupid, am trying to grasp the idea!)

43:29
@ 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

43:55
@Bart that is very helpful, thank you.

48:56
or at least to try to limit it to 200 pages :)

49:04
:)))

49:33
200 pages? That would traumatize them. 300 is the shortest length possible.

49:47
:-)

50:46
@ Tatiana, as soon as the membership definition is adjusted, IDNccTLD Managers can become members, just like the (ASCII) ccTLD Manager

51:18
@Bart, thank you so much

53:00
is RDAP in those texts? (WHOIS is going to die soon)

54:44
Hi. Could someone post a link to this presentation or a link to the CENTR response

55:53
Off Topic: How on zoom do you get your slides to be your background?

56:14
Jeff, I have the very same question!

56:33
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360046912351-Sharing-slides-as-a-Virtual-Background

56:35
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360046912351-Sharing-slides-as-a-Virtual-Background

56:44
Wow thanks so much

57:02
You should join one of the use of cams and presentation sessions Jonathan Zuke runs for ALAC/At-Large

57:05
After selecting share, select advanced (then you can share ppt as a virtual background)

57:12
@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

57:14
Please share the URL for the presentation

57:25
SIP includes the governemnt

58:00
Bart, massive thanks!

58:07
Thanks for that link. That's great!

58:29
I will post the recording as well as slides shortly: https://community.icann.org/x/MAFACQ

58:31
Thanks

58:50
does illegal include copyright issues?

58:57
in this context

59:31
This apply only for Europe or is already being applied worldwide?

59:51
Juan, this hasn’t been applicable yet, it’s a proposal for regulation.

59:51
This slide as a backdrop is the closest thing to "being in the room" I've seen yet... Very cool...

01:00:04
But it will certainly have extraterritorial reach

01:00:09
Outside Europe

01:01:02
@Maim, yes - see Recital 12.

01:01:09
MAxim - sorry.

01:01:24
AAGGHH . Breathe, Maxim. Even.

01:01:27
@Marie, thanks for the clarification

01:02:46
Europe never ends :) from the legal perspective ?

01:02:59
quite worrisome proposals...

01:03:28
even “whois like” will be better than WHOIS

01:05:46
Accurate

01:05:53
being the key word huh

01:06:12
(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 ...”

01:06:26
@Maxim - as you can see, they say “provide efficient access”. They do not refer to any specific technology

01:06:49
You're a star, Marie.

01:06:50
then it will still be relevant

01:07:41
Nope. Just spent far too long on the DSA lately ;-)). Joys of Brussels.

01:11:13
Clarification: the tools being developed by the EUIPO (nascent) are different from the draft Toolbox (Commission Recommendation).

01:12:06
Thank you Peter for that presentation!

01:12:33
Thanks Peter...and I loved the way you floated around the presentation itself!

01:12:51
Thank you, Peter!

01:12:53
Byron +1

01:14:36
That’s great to hear. Thank you. Centralised base sounds good.

01:15:12
thanks, all!

01:15:27
Thx Peter - Very useful

01:15:40
Again, here is the link to the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/MAFACQ

01:20:01
@Jordan that is in keeping with ATRT3 Recommendations of course

01:22:21
@Stephanie - Does that mean no implementing reviews already done?

01:22:53
Or does that mean no new reviews?

01:22:56
Have to run to my next meeting, nice to see you!

01:24:30
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

01:26:02
No new ones :)

01:26:12
The Prioritisation of Implementation is also Rec from ATRT3

01:26:41
ok. I get the no new reviews. BUt we would have lots of unhappy people if we didn't implement ATRT3, cct-rt, SSRT2

01:26:53
Especially since the board approved them

01:26:57
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.

01:27:17
@Kurt, a good thought

01:27:19
@Kurt +1

01:27:34
Thank you all, thank you Katrina

01:27:47
There has to be an improvement on how reviews are executed.

01:27:51
Thanks everyone! Bye all!

01:27:52
Thank you all, thanks Katrina!

01:27:52
Thank you all. Great session.

01:27:55
thanks all

01:27:58
Thank you all

01:27:59
Thank you all!