<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-BE" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Important</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Question: will you be on site for ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP4? </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">To do: Please let Kimberly know, so she can plan for priority in-room seating. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism teleconference | 18 May 2022 (19 UTC)</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">1. Welcome & Roll Call</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Some apologies received</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">2. Administrative Items, if any</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: ccPDP3-RM meeting at ICANN74. Hybrid meeting, with on site and remote participation. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Question: will you be on site for ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP4? </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">To do: Please let Kimberly know, so she can plan for priority in-room seating. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">ccPDP3-RET. No news. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">2.a. Action Items</span></i></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">None</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">3. Review the possibility of developing a new binding review mechanism</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">>>> flowchart current situation</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: We say: “cctld manager can go to court”. That never happened, to date. You need a legal theory to go to contract. We do not have contracts. Can a ccTLD manager
go to court? Not sure. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: in California anyone can take anyone to court</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">>>> non-binding</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">>>> binding</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Same lay-out as non-binding.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Only difference: buttom left-hand tree.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: process-flow is an example only? Of how it could look like?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: yes.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">>>> slide deck</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: IRP panel cannot tell icann what to do. Fine words by icann legal. But recalls - in a controversial irp - that the irp panel did exactly that. Irp judgments are
declaratory. The judgments go to the icann board for consideration. But icann board can probably not ignore. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: yes, there have been cases. But see bylaw phrasing. Fiduciary duty. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: BWG. Board Governance Committee</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: this is important. Invites all to pay attention</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: this costs resources, time, money, etc. unclear who would pay. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: frustrating. Implementation detail: hope we do not go into the same kind of infinite loop.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: this was decided 5 years ago. This was a decided and accepted point: there would be a standing panel. It is still not in place. These things take time.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Standard of review is the key. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Costs for binding vs non-binding would be similar.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Sean: Can’t we do IRP plus with the addition of ICANN covering costs on all sides with an ethics wall between finance and legal? The justification being its not merely
a precedent at this stage, but now policy going forward?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: ICANN legal will not pay your lawyer. Icann legal should not select your lawyer either</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: other parts of the community would object too</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><img width="262" height="167" style="width:2.7291in;height:1.7395in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image001.png@01D86B06.65489120"></span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: we are stuck</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: you want to inform the community. Seize the opportunity at ICANN74. Manage expectations</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">On your previous call, you agreed to pursue on the non-binding mechanism. That would bring relief to others, without the need to go through expensive court procedures.
If you have nothing in place, you force people to go to court. Even the non-binding will assist the cctlds. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: agrees. Non-binding is better than nothing. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: one of the reasons why we did the frames. Even with a binding mechanism, even with IRP, at the end of the day, you may end up in court anyway, and then you have
double costs.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><img width="292" height="271" style="width:3.0416in;height:2.8229in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.png@01D86B06.65489120"></span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: how to interpret the results?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nick: new binding mechanism is not going anywhere within a reasonable timeframe. Alternatives to court process, give better chances to ccTLDs. Not available to sit on
WG to develop a binding mechanism.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: if we say no, where do we end up?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: all agree we proceed with non-binding. Secondly, if we believe that a new mechanism would have to be very similar to the IRP, as icann legal has said, the exceptions
in the bylaws for cctlds are currently limited to delegations and transfers. Does not include revocations nor retirements. There is a process in place. And icann needs to develop a standard of review with community, for revocations and retirements. We need
to pick the least bad solution: non-binding, and possibly IRP. fundamental bylaw changes are needed in that case. Icann legal will support us. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">To answer Nigel’s question: We have the IRP for revocations and retirements. And develop a non-binding mechanism to go forward.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: does not make sense. Have 2 things in IRP, and 2 elements not? Big problem with non-binding: RFC says binding. We need to come up something that is a little
bit more binding than non-binding. See charter</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: ok to continue with 10 min?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: no</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: my opinion to survey changed, following Bernie’s answer</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">2 to 1 who did not vote yes. No consensus across this group, to go for our own designed binding mechanism. Very informal survey. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Next point: Eberhard is right. “Delegation and redelegation” to mean “anything to do with cctld relations with the root”. Icann legal sees it more limited. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Allan: good discussion. Least worse option is to continue developing of a non-binding mechanism. Let’s pause and try to get a consensus. Not available to sit on WG to
develop a binding mechanism.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Linear approach today. We should revisit and try to develop a consensus</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: consequence cannot be non-binding. We should tell council we cannot fulfill our mandate. Extract from bylaws. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">“Notwithstanding any other provision in this Section 4.2, the scope of reconsideration shall exclude the following:</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">(i) Disputes relating to country code top-level domain ("ccTLD") delegations and re-delegations;</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">(ii) Disputes relating to Internet numbering resources; and</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">(iii) Disputes relating to protocol parameters.”</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Old language in the bylaws. My most important concern is the RM for revocation. That is covered under bylaws, not under IRP. deep ditch for me</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: the bylaw change was in 2016. FOI was adopted in 2014 by board. All knew what was meant. But there is wiggle room. Context: retirement is now included, since it
was part of part B of ccPDP3. We separated it. The RM is not ready, when the ccpdp3-RET is adopted by the board. Room for include/exclude. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: re-delegation has been supersedes by revocations and transfers. Retirement is technically a revocation. Retirement in IRP, and revocation in our solution.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: the words are there in the bylaws. And in icann legal bylaws they signal clearly that they are open to wiggle room. Just transfers, not revocations. Half in half
out. Not ideal. Revocations and retiremetns in IRP? Our choice. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: revocation means only a transfer? Over my dead body</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bernie: we can have bylaw change which will clarify either way. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Eberhard: cannot be our intention. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Nigel: what do you want it to mean? We want to clarify. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">4. Continue the non-binding proposal</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Defer to next meeting</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">5. ICANN74</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> Policy Update | Tuesday, 14 June | 11:15-12:30 UTC</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> ccPDP3 RM Working session | Tuesday, 14 June | 13:00-14:00 UTC</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Bart: prep needed for the next meeting. We are at a crossroad. Use the discussions from today, to update the community, check where they are at. And take the results
from that session, for evaluation during our WG meeting. Before we make any decisions, consult with the community first. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Do you agree? Consult with the community on the principle point ?</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Stephen: yes. No objections by group either. </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">6. AOB</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">7. Next meetings</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> 1 June 19:00 UTC – prep ICANN74</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> </span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Thank you all. Goodbye.</span><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Joke Braeken<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">joke.braeken@icann.org<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>