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

and Brian

There is a ton of background noise when David was speaking

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

Is it just me?

Yes there seem to be noise

+1 Griffin

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.

definitely discussed

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.

Hand up

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

*recommending

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

Better now

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 Phil

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

thanks david

Thanks David

nothing from staff

thanks David, Bye All

Thanks all

Thank you very much David!