Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Martin Sutton
34:17
my audio line dropped. rejoined by zoom but on audio only.
Justine Chew
42:31
@Susan, but we aren't dealing with "protection" per se.
Katrin Ohlmer
42:32
I would like to note that members who support the first proposal (notification) represent a number of SO/ACs, while the support for the second proposal (adjectieval forms) are mainly from members of one SO/AC.
Paul McGrady
43:10
+1 Susan. This is a significant compromise on top of all of the compromises already found in the 2012 AGB.
Katrin Ohlmer
44:20
@Paul: The 2012 AGB has been a compromise by all sides.
Greg Shatan
44:57
Katrin, Are you referring to a SO/AC that is itself composed of widely differing Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies?
Paul McGrady
46:35
@Katrin - correct. So, in this case, the geo-protections crowd are getting what they got out of the AGB 2012 + the benefits proposed in the Adjectival prooposal. Those who think there should be no particular geo-rights for governments are stuck with the AGB 2012 compromises plus the new benefits to governments of the adjectival proposal. .
Paul McGrady
46:59
+1 Greg. The GNSO has a broad range of interests in it.
Katrin Ohlmer
47:41
@Greg: No
Paul McGrady
48:02
@Katrin, which SO/AC are you referring to then?
Marita Moll
48:09
I would be favouring proposal one -- workable, not a complicated implementation -- notification should be the baseline. Countries are at different stages. We have to recognize that.
Katrin Ohlmer
48:39
@Paul: We do not talk about protections, as Jorge just mentioned. We are talking about notifications based on national law without any consequences.
Robin Gross
49:26
Proposal one seems too burdensome on applicants and its impact will be a chilling effect on speech.
Katrin Ohlmer
49:28
Proposal 1 does not do any harm.
Paul McGrady
49:47
@Katrin, if there are no consequences, why would we do the Early Reveal? Clearly, the handful of governments pushing for this have some idea of what they would do with the notifications.
Jorge Cancio
49:49
@ob
Jorge Cancio
50:25
@Robin: an automatized notification is not very much of a burden...
Paul McGrady
50:25
+1 Robin. Whenever governments put words on a list that can't be used without governments being notified, it will chill speech.
Katrin Ohlmer
50:26
@Paul: You have to ask Susan, as she proposed the Early Reveal Proposal.
Greg Shatan
51:18
Jumping out of a building doesn't do any harm either -- until you hit the ground.
John Rodriguez
51:43
We have said the notification is to give early notice... and to inform applicants of terms that are of importance to some countries... but what would be the expected outcome? I still have concerns that the early notification is creating an expected outcome where the geo term notified will be the "winner"...regardless of the "safeguard" language in the proposal saying no legal effect.
Susan Payne
52:09
@Katrin, what am I supposed to answer? The early reveal was built on an idea that originally came from Jorge
Justine Chew
52:21
@Paul, "significance" in the compromise is subjective :)
Jorge Cancio
52:40
I see that many concerns are really basically wild hypothesis, with respect
Justine Chew
53:01
@Paul, It is NOT "do not use" Where does it say "do not use"?
Katrin Ohlmer
53:02
@Susan: Jorge proposed a notification whereas you suggested the Early Reveal Process, no?
Jorge Cancio
53:15
purpose: put interested governments on notice
Greg Shatan
53:30
If the response to the notification would also have no legal or operational effect, that could make this workable, potentially.
Greg Shatan
53:53
Jorge, What can governments do once they have thta notice?
Katrin Ohlmer
54:22
@Greg: The proposal 1 does not foresee a response to the notification.
Paul McGrady
54:31
@Katrin - early notification and Early Reveal are the same thing - Early Reveal is just better branding...
Annebeth Lange
55:11
Members have worked hard to find a compromise to go a step further, and it would be a shame not be able to find a way forward now.
Greg Shatan
55:27
Katrin, Then why do it, if it has no reason and no intended effect?
Jorge Cancio
56:15
the purpose is to put goernments on notice - and with the list being public also applicants would be on notice
Katrin Ohlmer
56:20
@Annebeth: Exactly, especially since proposal 1 is now so limited.
Greg Shatan
56:42
Notice for what purpose?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
57:20
Does any WT member strongly disagree with the limited adjectival form notification proposal?
Annebeth Lange
57:25
@Katrin; At least it will be a sign of politeness, showing understanding for the feelings of governments
Katrin Ohlmer
57:45
@Greg: It has an effect but no response mechanism - that is the difference.
Jorge Cancio
57:54
to know that such an application is being made... and then see what they want to do within the AGB and legal framework
Javier Rúa-Jovet
58:15
If no one disagrees on adjectival forms, we might have something here.
Robin Gross
58:18
Presumably notice so they can stop a tld
Greg Shatan
58:24
@Katrin, you make it sound as if we are building a bridge to nowhere.
John Rodriguez
58:35
Wll they not be informed at a later reveal date?
Greg Shatan
58:49
Which is usually a classic example of governmental waste and folly.
Robin Gross
58:55
Proposal 1 goes too far in chilling free speech. Notice is for a purpose - to stop speech.
Greg Shatan
59:16
So this is clearly a bridge to somewhere. But its proponents seem unwilling to admit what that somewhere is.
Katrin Ohlmer
59:18
Both proposals have no consequences - so why don't we go with the broader?
Paul McGrady
59:20
+1 Robin
Alexander Schubert
59:25
City-Community relies on the city Government, and that relies on the country government!
Greg Shatan
59:36
Both proposals clearly have consequences.
Alexander Schubert
01:00:33
Robin: A city communty need sto know that someone applied for their name as a brand! How should they know? They can only object if they are "noticed"!
Justine Chew
01:01:09
Disagree with Paul
Katrin Ohlmer
01:01:43
So if the notification has a chilling effect, it also has on proposal 2, where potentially all countries will receive notifactions.
Marita Moll
01:01:46
I don't get the chilling free speech -- it is just notifiy people who will be affected. It is not just governments who should know, but communities who are affected.
Greg Shatan
01:01:59
Alexander, they may have a wish to know, but not a need to know. Every stakeholder with an interest in a string has a wish to know.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:02:38
Why do members then suggest Proposal 2 if a chilling effect is assumed?
Colin O'Brien
01:03:08
Well said Paul, openendedness is a concern
Greg Shatan
01:03:09
@Katrin, you will have to ask those members. Perhaps they don't care.
Susan Payne
01:03:15
@Katrin, as Paul is explaining, it's an attempt at compromise
Robin Gross
01:03:40
Completely agree with Paul. The harms are real for chilling speech with undefined lists of words we can’t use unless a govt gives us permission.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:03:55
I don't understand why a chilling effect is assumed for proposal 1 and not proposal 2.
Justine Chew
01:04:03
Where does it say that @Robin?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:04:35
@Robin: The proposal suggest a defined list, which has to be covered by national law.
Paul McGrady
01:04:45
@Jorge -please don't put words in my mouth that I did not speak. I didn't say there is a secret plan for use of these notifications. However, I cannot buy the idea that the notifications are wanted by a handufl of governments but that they serve no purpose.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:05:11
So, for Germany, would be pretty limited - in case the German government would provide such a list at all.
Robin Gross
01:05:26
“terms with geographic meaning” is entirely unbounded.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:06:03
@Robin: Which alternative wording would be ok for you?
Susan Payne
01:06:04
@Katrin, there's absolutely chilling in prop 2 too. It's merely a shorter and clearly defined list. As in, it's a chilling we are offering to live with to try to compromiose
Greg Shatan
01:06:10
@Katrin, how is the list "defined"? And why would the German list be "pretty limited" -- couldn't it be every placename in Germany.
Paul McGrady
01:06:15
+1 Robin - what is being asked for is very overbroad and Jorge's comments now is making it clear that it is meant to be unbounded.
Justine Chew
01:07:27
We are talking about notice, not requirement for a letter of support or non-objection, pertaining to a list of strings based on national law.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:07:51
+1 Justine
Marita Moll
01:08:20
I think there are enough provisos and limitations in proposal one to advert some terrible consequence
Susan Payne
01:09:06
Are we not bothering with the timer anymore then?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:09:07
@Marita: Well said.
Robin Gross
01:09:38
It is notice for the purpose of stopping speech. Simply saying “its only notice” seems to try to hide the effect and play word games.
Greg Shatan
01:09:54
@Marita, We have no idea what the consequences are. Some have told us there are no consequences. Jorge seems to list quite a number of potential consequences, though vague ("being at the table").
Katrin Ohlmer
01:10:25
@Robin: That applies to Proposal 2 as well, so you are against this one as well?
Paul McGrady
01:10:34
I appreciate Jorge;'s comments as they are confirming that the over-broad list is meant to be very, very broad. There is no stomach for that kind of massive expansion of geo-protections in the AGB.
John Rodriguez
01:10:53
I think we are reaffirming the clear and diverse views in the WT5 which have existed since its onset.
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:10:55
Notification is a matter of elementary courtesy, but also helpful to most governments who do not monitor domain na
Robin Gross
01:11:00
Katrin, my preference is no new restrictions at all.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:11:18
@Robin: Thx for clarifying
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:11:30
…who do not monitor domain name issues on a regular basis
Greg Shatan
01:11:47
How is "other terms with geographic terms" narrow?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:14
@Yrjo: I fully agree. We only defer potential issues to the future while we could make reasonable amendments now.
Greg Shatan
01:12:17
Geographical Indications is a whole different set of issues.
Justine Chew
01:12:46
@Greg, ...." must provide the source in national law..."
Jorge Cancio
01:12:51
@Paul: pls accept my apologies if I misunderstood sth or misstated anything you said...
Annebeth Lange
01:13:24
We know through the months of discussing this that some members want no protection at all and others want more protection than the AGB 2012. There has been serious work from both “camps” to find a middle way, and it is disappointing if we cannot find that.
Greg Shatan
01:13:49
@Justine, What types of protection in national law? Or is that open ended as well?
Jorge Cancio
01:14:01
Christopher is right on terminology... this would Need to be refined
Paul McGrady
01:14:09
@Jorge - thank you.
Justine Chew
01:14:17
The ones mentioned repeated by Jorge eg Swiss law
Susan Payne
01:14:21
@Christopher, I' d love to know where you think the applicant for "Bath" shoould be incorporated? It's a city in miultiple countries. It's also a dictionary word for the item you bathe in., where I come from, in the plural, it';s a colloquial term for the municipal swimming pool
Greg Shatan
01:14:44
@Justine, that is just an example of a country....
Justine Chew
01:15:07
@Greg, yes, so?
Annebeth Lange
01:15:29
@Martin, good point
Greg Shatan
01:15:31
So that does not provide any clarity on what type of national law we are talking about.
Jorge Cancio
01:15:36
Martin makes an interesting point
Susan Payne
01:15:48
@Christopher - oh, and it's a type of stone
Justine Chew
01:16:23
@Greg, then can't we look at refining rather than discarding altogether?
Colin O'Brien
01:16:25
@Christopher if Coca-Cola wished to register .coke does it need to get approval from Coke County, Texas a jurisdiction with less than 4000 people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_County,_Texas
Susan Payne
01:17:08
@Colin, Yes! and by Christopher's view it also has to incorporate there!
Greg Shatan
01:18:08
@Colin, you should ask Tata. The Moroccan province has a population of 121,000.
Greg Shatan
01:18:17
Still a small number.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:18:35
@Olga: There is support from several SO/ACs for Proposal 1!
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:18:36
Apologies, work snafu came up. Will follow the recording
Susan Payne
01:18:53
@Katrin - and opposition
Katrin Ohlmer
01:19:14
@Susan: from which SO/ACs?
Susan Payne
01:19:24
GNSO, GAC
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:37
I’m confused – is that apparent support for adjectival forms – the first part of proposal 1 – and not the second part of proposal 1. We haven’t discussed proposal 2 yet today, no?
Paul McGrady
01:19:46
@Olga, I really have to object to your repeating Jorge's "secret plan" notion that he implied I said which I did not say. Jorge has already apologized for it, but your continuing to repeat it is quite unsettling, especially in your role as Chair.
Susan Payne
01:19:47
since people don't identify where they come from I don't know if others off top of my head
Robin Gross
01:19:53
I hope our opposition is being incorporated into the discussion. Not just all this talk about not seeing opposition and seeing support.
Greg Shatan
01:19:57
ALAC as well (though also support)
Katrin Ohlmer
01:20:12
@Susan: According to the SOIs the view is pretty different.
Greg Shatan
01:20:18
Civil society has also objected.
Susan Payne
01:20:36
@Katrin, I don't think so
Paul McGrady
01:20:36
@Olga - thank you
Paul McGrady
01:21:17
We don't vote in the GNSO either. We do things by consensus. There is no consensus on the broader proposal.
Robin Gross
01:21:24
I do not support making a broader proposal.
Paul McGrady
01:21:55
@Olga - you have conflated the GNSO Council with the GNSO
Colin O'Brien
01:21:57
I do not support a broader proposal either
Greg Shatan
01:21:59
The GNSO Council is a policy management body.
John Rodriguez
01:22:21
Do not support broader proposal. Concern with the larger proposal is that it refers to any/other terms with geographic meaning... Just overly broad.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:22:22
people validily have their different positions. lets try and not characterize other WT members proposals.
Paul McGrady
01:22:26
In policy development processes, it is by consensus not by vote.
Greg Shatan
01:22:31
The GNSO is a collection of disparate organizations that should not be lumped together.
Emily Barabas
01:23:20
Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings.This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.• Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.4• Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports arecommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.
Jorge Cancio
01:23:24
I miss the adobe chat... was much easier to scrollup and down...
Emily Barabas
01:23:38
Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support forany particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilabledifferences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in thereport nonetheless.• Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support therecommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significantopposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support noropposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.
Annebeth Lange
01:23:41
Could we pose the question if the WT5 is willing to give a recommendation for proposal 1? How many are violently in opposition?
Jorge Cancio
01:23:51
so apologies if I 'm not answering or reacting to good comments on the chat
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:23:56
From my perspective there is significant agreement on P1 and still disagreement on P2.
Emily Barabas
01:23:58
See section 3.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-18jun18-en.pdf
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:00
Proposal 1 has two parts - are we taking them together?
Annebeth Lange
01:24:29
@Javier, I agree. What we cannot agree on, could anyway be voluntary
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:58
Part 1 is adjectival forms and part 2 is other terms unless I have mis-read
Greg Shatan
01:25:04
@Annabeth, we would have to agree that it is voluntary.
Annebeth Lange
01:25:20
@David, good question. I think we should pose this on the email list and try to measure the feeling of the WT 5
Robin Gross
01:25:22
at what point do we close this discussion and not have more proposals?
Jorge Cancio
01:25:24
I suggest Martin leads on a 1.5 solution
Greg Shatan
01:26:00
I think that we have "divergence" on part 2, which indicates that it should not go forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:11
Predictability is indeed an overarching objective @Olga yes
Robin Gross
01:26:50
Agree, Greg. There is too much opposition for it too forward.
Paul McGrady
01:27:00
+1 Greg +1 Robin
Greg Shatan
01:28:44
Predictability is a laudable goal under some circumstances but not others. One party elections are predictable but not desirable.
Paul McGrady
01:29:35
This is a completely unworkable idea. From a prior email on the list: There are 88 different cities and towns in the US alone that share the name Washington. Springfield has 41 different locations. Franklin has 35. Greenville has 30. Bristol, 29. Clinton, 29. Salem has 26. Madison has a lowly 24. Georgetown has 23. Forgot Fairview, it has 27. And that is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Both the path of running around trying to get letters from dozens of cities or the path of ICANN picking winners and losers are unworkable in the extreme.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:29:40
Le tme answer 1: How would this work if more than one place shares the city name. It would be resolved as in the AGB 2012 rules.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:29:57
susan has a hand
Emily Barabas
01:30:15
Olga, I believe this proposal supersedes a previous proposal discussed on this topics
Emily Barabas
01:30:19
*topic
Susan Payne
01:30:24
hand
Katrin Ohlmer
01:30:30
@Paul: Will be resolved as per AGB 2012. No changes.
Paul McGrady
01:30:34
@Katrin - but how? Would ICANN Org staff pick the winners and losers? Yes to Paris, Texas but no to Pairs France?
Matthew Johnson
01:31:20
+1 Susan
Katrin Ohlmer
01:31:21
@Paul: Auction, On-Hold or Agreement. You can check the AGB 2012.
Jorge Cancio
01:31:43
@Susan: Swiss law is beautiful ;P
Colin O'Brien
01:31:55
The Swiss example should apply to .ch
Robin Gross
01:32:07
Agree with Susan. This proposal violates national sovereignty by making citizens of all countries abide by Swiss law.
Susan Payne
01:32:16
@Jorge, that may be so, but we do not all have the luck to live in Switzerland
Katrin Ohlmer
01:32:28
@Robin: No, only applicants from that country.
Paul McGrady
01:32:36
+1 Susan and +1 Robin.
Jorge Cancio
01:32:38
was obviously joking...
Susan Payne
01:32:55
@Jorge - I know, me too :)
Paul McGrady
01:33:51
+1 Greg - great example. Also, it would be impossible to comply with all laws at the same time. It is impossible to comply with both N. Korea's laws on speech and the U.S.'s First Amendment.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:33:55
@Greg: Well, why does ICANN then implement GDPR if they woud not be forced to do so?
Greg Shatan
01:34:14
Because GDPR has specific extraterritorial effect written into the law.
Susan Payne
01:34:40
to be clear just in case, I am not criticising Switzerland or it's laws. Just, we are not all bound by those national laws
christopher wilkinson
01:35:10
Applicable law that applies to what ICANN is doing, e.g. delegating TDs. (Othwewise, what is EPDP Whois doing)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:35:26
GDPR is a bit different given its specific extraterriorial efffect.
Jorge Cancio
01:35:29
jokes aside: local law is important, and can't be ignored... especially when prevalent in a sizeable number ofcountries
Greg Shatan
01:35:47
When I go to Switzerland, I promise I will not ignore its laws.
Paul McGrady
01:36:15
If a country wants to prevent a new gTLD application from going forward and they think they have a basis in law to do so, they are free to sue ICANN and see what happens. There can't be any serious claim that every applicant everywhere is subject to local laws in places that they have never stepped foot in.
Robin Gross
01:36:16
local law only applies locally and it violates national sovereignty to try to apply it outside of the locality
christopher wilkinson
01:36:17
a TLD has - par excellence - extraterritorial effects.
John Rodriguez
01:36:24
+1 Susan and +1 Greg - concerns with the proposal.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:36:34
We can ignore national law, but will only defer the issue to the future then.
Marita Moll
01:36:58
good point @Christopher
Greg Shatan
01:37:19
The effect of TLDs does not drag all laws into ICANN's bailiwick.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:37:21
True @Christopher!
Paul McGrady
01:37:21
+1 Olga - no consensus here.
Greg Shatan
01:37:42
Shall we take the sum total of all local law and subject ICANN to it, then?
Robin Gross
01:37:43
saying “the internet going everywhere” does not extend local laws outside of their jurisdiction.
Alexander Schubert
01:38:42
If you want full-screen: at the top of the zoom window is a "view options" when you move the mouse pointer to the top of the window! Click on the pop-down menue....
Paul McGrady
01:38:46
@Robin - agree. Air goes everywhere around the globe, but Swiss citizens aren't subject to EPA Clean Air laws unless their activities are located in the US.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:38:57
True @Robin
Alan Greenberg
01:39:51
n national law, since it is possible that different national alws may conflict with each other, all we can do is alert applicants to the existance of national laws that may impact their TLD and leave it to them to decide how to proceed.
Jorge Cancio
01:40:00
I thought the EPA had been dismantled ;P
Paul McGrady
01:40:52
@Jorge - I picked a bad example. :)
Greg Shatan
01:44:34
Does the "and/or" at the end of (a) mean that (a) does not need to be satisfied? Wholly unacceptable. This should be an "and" to even consider this suggestion.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:45:06
@Greg: The proposal was "AND"
Annebeth Lange
01:45:29
In P2 I personally find the word “primarily” problematic. That is unclear and not predictable
Jorge Cancio
01:45:44
support Katrin's text with the additional tweaks
Greg Shatan
01:45:48
@Katrin, then why does the slide say and/or?
Emily Barabas
01:45:51
Katrin, it was my understanding that the requirement would apply to cities of 100,000 regardless of intended use, correct?
Emily Barabas
01:46:15
based on the and/or connector
Katrin Ohlmer
01:46:39
@Annebeth: "Primarily" comes from the AGB and is part of each proposal.
Sophie Hey
01:46:46
Just a thought to combine the two proposals, if we rephrase to "The applied for string is an exact match of a city name as listed on official city documents or as set out in national legislation designating the place as a city"
Greg Shatan
01:47:00
The current AGB does not require a letter in the Cleveland example.
Robin Gross
01:48:01
And that is best option on the table, Greg.
Sophie Hey
01:50:28
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/documents/dyb2017/Notes08.pdf
Katrin Ohlmer
01:50:29
@Sophie: Thank you for the suggestion, might be a workable way forward.
Sophie Hey
01:50:31
For reference
Alexander Schubert
01:50:36
Can we show the policy text?
Emily Barabas
01:50:57
Hi Alexander, which policy?
Alexander Schubert
01:51:08
The suiggested text we are discussing!
Alexander Schubert
01:51:16
THAAANKS!
Sophie Hey
01:51:49
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZSuKTRm2y3mTg9FBZHv50ljP-dWE9N_okz9gcl2-2U/edit
Katrin Ohlmer
01:51:54
It was meant as "AND"
Susan Payne
01:51:59
at the end of (a) it certainly needs to be AND to have the effect Katrin suggested it has
Annebeth Lange
01:52:16
It has to be “and” as far as I can see
Robin Gross
01:52:34
Agree.
Greg Shatan
01:53:46
I think with an "AND" I would be able to support this.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:54:30
@Alex: Exactly, it provides for more clarity and transparency for applicants.
Paul McGrady
01:54:36
With only 3 minutes left, I'm not sure we have enough runway to fully discuss this (much less understand it fully). Can we push this to the list again and take it up on the next call?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:54:43
Time check on call, less than 5 minutes to go.
Robin Gross
01:55:04
Still seems too broad of a restriction.
Alexander Schubert
01:55:12
Support foir this proposal with "and"
Paul McGrady
01:55:35
Would be good to have a stable text to ponder.
Sophie Hey
01:55:54
@Paul I will send to the list
christopher wilkinson
01:56:07
Never knew … implausible!!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:56:12
good progress!
Emily Barabas
01:56:31
Next call is September 4 at 20:00 UTC
Paul McGrady
01:56:44
Big call today. Thank you everyone for the civil discourse and creative ideas.
Greg Shatan
01:56:46
Most trademark applicants conduct comprehensive searches prior to adopting a mark. These searches are often hundreds of pages, with all sorts of possible terms to consider. The postulate of the ignorant trademark holder is probably the exception.
Alexander Schubert
01:56:50
Thaaanks to you!
Robin Gross
01:56:51
Thanks, Olga and all, bye!
Annebeth Lange
01:56:54
Good discussion - well done, Olga. Sorry for my silence, I had problems with the audio.
Jorge Cancio
01:56:57
thanks all and bye!
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:56:58
bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:01
bye 👋 lots covered today, thanks everyone... bye for now