
39:13
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

49:54
hand up from Susan

51:00
That’s correct, Susan. The specific suggestion was not discussed by the WG.

51:19
So the Sub Group could consider whether to refer it to the full WG

52:07
Hand up from Michael

52:11
and Brian

58:16
There is a ton of background noise when David was speaking

58:18
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit?pli=1#gid=1311753169

58:20
Is it just me?

58:59
Yes there seem to be noise

59:01
+1 Griffin

59:03
No, it’s not just you, Griffin.

59:06
Noise and volume going in and out

59:10
david is fading in and out

59:10
Lots of noise

59:20
@David, there is some background noise on your end.

01:00:31
Might be a headset jostling around?

01:03:04
Michel - we definitely discussed the either/or scenario

01:03:05
Agree with Griffin that Spec 13 clarification should be noted.

01:03:09
definitely discussed

01:03:19
It was raised as it was originally discussed in the original RPM IRT

01:03:30
I think we discussed either/or, but staff can check

01:03:53
Staff can check for exactly when this was discussed, but we can confirm that it was certainly a topic that was brought up early on.

01:04:24
Fair enough - would appreciate if staff would take a look, but seems like I stand corrected.

01:04:49
Hand up

01:04:57
It may take us some time but we will do our best to be more specific about where and when. It was quite early, IIRC.

01:06:17
I mean it seems like we did reach a conclusion by recommendation both mandatory Sunrise and TM Claims

01:06:25
*recommending

01:06:35
The next one down specifically addresses either/or

01:07:53
david you are fading again

01:07:54
Can't hear David very well - phasing in and out. Is it just me?

01:08:08
maybe are you turning away from mic when you read?

01:08:29
All, if you are not speaking, please make sure your mic is muted.

01:09:14
Seems like the noise is all coming from David’s mic somehow

01:09:37
All other mics are muted

01:09:54
David, you are fading in and out

01:10:33
@David, I am happy to dial out to you as well

01:10:36
Better now

01:10:41
It seems to be an issue with the headset

01:10:44
Distance to microphone?

01:15:33
It is the second blue line

01:15:35
On the screen

01:16:09
Agree with Susan… isn’t this WG providing an opportunity for CP to provide input on this? And public comment?

01:16:11
ICANN org suggests that the WG seek specific input from contracted parties concerning its recommendation to remove grounds (i) and (iii) in Section 6.2.4 of the current TMCH Model of Module 5 of the AGB

01:17:56
@Brian, that was my point - I believe we have adequate input from the CPs

01:19:06
So Tucow’s comment would be viewed as sorta a minority statement separate from the CPH comments?

01:19:54
Also not sure Tucows’ comments raised anything new that hadn’t been discussed, and much of it seems to simply seek clarification about which sections of the AGB are meant to be referenced

01:20:57
Even if they weren't participating in the WG, the point is that they can if they want. I don't think we want to encourage non-participation by ensuring non-participators get some sort of legislative review opportunity...

01:24:01
I didn't see any new thoughts in the comments

01:25:00
agree with Susan -- well travelled ground

01:25:21
Agree, I think we can close a bit early and accept that we have made unexpectedly rapid progress today

01:26:04
I would support adding another agenda item going forward, adopting Phil’s suggested approach

01:28:49
thanks Phil

01:29:34
Thanks David and all, very productive call today

01:29:37
That was solely a personal response/the co-chairs have not yet discussed the ICANN 68 agenda for the full WG

01:29:51
thanks david

01:30:07
Thanks David

01:30:11
nothing from staff

01:30:12
thanks David, Bye All

01:30:17
Thanks all

01:30:19
Thank you very much David!