051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
hand up from Susan
That’s correct, Susan. The specific suggestion was not discussed by the WG.
So the Sub Group could consider whether to refer it to the full WG
Hand up from Michael
There is a ton of background noise when David was speaking
Is it just me?
Yes there seem to be noise
No, it’s not just you, Griffin.
Noise and volume going in and out
david is fading in and out
Lots of noise
@David, there is some background noise on your end.
Might be a headset jostling around?
Michel - we definitely discussed the either/or scenario
Agree with Griffin that Spec 13 clarification should be noted.
It was raised as it was originally discussed in the original RPM IRT
I think we discussed either/or, but staff can check
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.
Fair enough - would appreciate if staff would take a look, but seems like I stand corrected.
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.
I mean it seems like we did reach a conclusion by recommendation both mandatory Sunrise and TM Claims
The next one down specifically addresses either/or
david you are fading again
Can't hear David very well - phasing in and out. Is it just me?
maybe are you turning away from mic when you read?
All, if you are not speaking, please make sure your mic is muted.
Seems like the noise is all coming from David’s mic somehow
All other mics are muted
David, you are fading in and out
@David, I am happy to dial out to you as well
It seems to be an issue with the headset
Distance to microphone?
It is the second blue line
On the screen
Agree with Susan… isn’t this WG providing an opportunity for CP to provide input on this? And public comment?
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
@Brian, that was my point - I believe we have adequate input from the CPs
So Tucow’s comment would be viewed as sorta a minority statement separate from the CPH comments?
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
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...
I didn't see any new thoughts in the comments
agree with Susan -- well travelled ground
Agree, I think we can close a bit early and accept that we have made unexpectedly rapid progress today
I would support adding another agenda item going forward, adopting Phil’s suggested approach
Thanks David and all, very productive call today
That was solely a personal response/the co-chairs have not yet discussed the ICANN 68 agenda for the full WG
nothing from staff
thanks David, Bye All
Thank you very much David!