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

Reminders:**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

**Alternates not replacing a member are not permitted to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing.

As a reminder only members and alternates replacing members on this call should vote.

+1 Kristian

Yeah a very good point Kristian. I was planning to mark the losing Rr FOA as dependant on FOA also

+1 Sarah

**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

repeating for all - +1 Kristian and Sarah

I think the topics listed are sufficient

so i'm marking q2 as "yes" because we said this is tied to the FOAs

wait

this is still the FOAs! i'm sorry

Is it a security measure relating to the registered domain itself or to the dns for that domain? Like, is it directly related to the transfer process?

**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

Based on Jim's intervention, this could be an appropriate area for when we seek early input from the SOs/ACs. So starting to think about some questions that we can add here will be helpful.

I think if we're discussing this we'll need some education on how DNSSEC works, what the current method is to move the DNSSEC provider from one to another, how it ties to the transfer process, etc. before we can confirm if it's even in scope for this PDP

+1 Sarah

I think first we must figure out if it's in scope for what we want to accomplish here. (I am not convinced that it is)

+1 Sarah

Kristian - right, which I think is out of scope here

+1 Sarah

sure but if we're considering changing scope I would want to see a Very Good Reason for that

Absolutely agree.

not a 1st resort, but last.

Standards relating to authcode accessibility

Agree that those topics are connected

that could work, but maybe losing before gaining

Got it. Thanks Sarah.

Thanks for that dry run repeat of last weeks topics. Very helpful to me.

I thought this was great re pace etc

New territory here, so encourage members to speak up.

**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

Here is a link to the report: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200219/94112f0f/Rec27-Wave1-Updated-14feb20-0001.pdf

See item 5 and 9 on page 23-25

As well as two items on FOA on page 28

Great, sounds good

@Steve good distinctions that should be looked at

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding (I had to step away) but I thought Steve referred to a situation where a law firm registers a domain on behalf of their client. I'm not sure that's something to even consider here? The law firm would be the registrant, nothing further to say. It may be a consideration for the PPSAI group.

I agree that the different incarnations of having a private/proxied registration have different implications, with the one mentioned above probably being out of scope, but worthy of some discussion.

Thank you