00:31:12 Kimberly Carlson: Welcome to today’s ccPDP on Review Mechanism Working Group Teleconference on 17 June at 04:00 UTC. In the interest of time, there will be no roll call. No apologies have been received. As a reminder, all calls are recorded and recordings posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/SggdC) Please mute your phones and microphones when not speaking to avoid background noise and echoing. This call is governed under ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en 00:34:41 Vanda Scartezini: HI BECKY NICE TO SEE YOU HERE!! 00:35:13 Becky Burr: thanks all! 00:39:52 Becky Burr: standing panel is a critical component of making this process work for ICANN 00:47:59 Vanda Scartezini: there is a call for this standing panel right now, right? 00:48:02 Becky Burr: Amy, under the post-transition bylaws, IRP findings are binding on ICANN as opposed to something the Board can reject. I think. 00:48:48 Becky Burr: and yes, Vanda, there is a call for expressions of interest for members of the standing panel 00:49:29 Stephen Deerhake: Hi Becky! Thank you for being here! I need a dog bark when you are on mike later! ;-) 00:49:29 Vanda Scartezini: thanks Becky . 00:49:59 Becky Burr: @Stephen, Gus is snoozing. 00:51:44 Kimberly Carlson: Slides can be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/ioXsBw 00:54:13 Stephen Deerhake: @Becky, Gus has better sense than we all do! 00:54:46 Stephen Deerhake: Yes 00:55:06 Eberhard Lisse: Becky, Amy is speaking 00:55:11 Nick WS’ iPhone: ah thanks Becky I was wondering about precedent value of previous IRP decisions 00:56:02 Eberhard Lisse: But she seems to be using the telephonic dialup, which also explains the poor voice quality I am getting 01:00:59 Becky Burr: @Eberhard, the timing issue is still under discussion with the IRP IOT 01:01:04 Nick WS’ iPhone: why was the ccTLD delegation etc thought inappropriate for the IRP process? 01:01:27 jaap: lost sound comletely 01:01:53 Eberhard Lisse: I just noticed, does the IRP apply to decisions of the ccNSO and/or of the ccNSO Council (not pertaining to Delegation or Change of Manager)? 01:02:13 Sam Eisner: @Eberhard, no 01:02:39 Sam Eisner: But it could apply to the ICANN Board in acting on a ccNSO policy recommendation 01:02:49 Eberhard Lisse: Oh, ok, is there any mechanism for that? 01:03:14 Sam Eisner: Other that the Ombudsman for fairness, ICANN does not have accountability mechanisms built in for the ICANN structures 01:03:18 Eberhard Lisse: I mean ccNSO/ccNSO COuncil 01:03:20 Nick WS’ iPhone: I mean it seems if there’s a good reason for that, then we shouldn’t go down an IRP type route for the purposes of this policy work 01:03:29 jaap: Restarting (again) 01:04:09 Eberhard Lisse: I am asking because ccNSO has/makes rules. 01:05:08 Eberhard Lisse: Not pertaining to this Wg, but perhaps worth noting that there is no such mechanism 01:09:27 Vanda Scartezini: no question from me - clear 01:14:08 Becky Burr: correct EL. and you csan move constructive engagement into formal mediation in the current process 01:19:17 Becky Burr: as a practical matter, I think most folks exhaust other remedies (eg reconsideration, constructive engagement) before moving to arbitration 01:23:15 Eberhard Lisse: Yes, but making this a condition before starting an “expensive” process will be cost saving 01:26:15 Maarten Simon: Very sensible decision 01:28:06 Anna Karakhanyan: 15th July will be good 01:28:17 Amy Stathos: My pleasure. Thanks all. 01:28:28 Kimberly Carlson: Thank you all, be well. Bye 01:28:32 Vanda Scartezini: yes good changes . 15 will be a good meeting on PDP work 01:28:43 Bernard Turcotte: bye all 01:28:44 Allan MacGillivray: Good morning!