
35:15
Thanks - listening on computer audio and will speak, if needed, on phone

36:54
Staff will help with this

37:15
Thank you Julie

39:24
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz_jMHBFL70/edit#

39:24
This is the analysis doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz_jMHBFL70/edit#

39:30
I can see it

40:23
I can too.

40:28
and I still see it

40:32
I can too

46:11
agreed and Q 2 relates

49:46
Zoom is quirky today...

51:38
I think we have seen some full WG requests for such a rec Phil

51:56
That's right we passed that along from Sub A

51:56
Hand up

53:53
Thanks Ariel -

54:19
np

54:41
Agree with Phil.

54:47
Thanks Phil, that appears consistent with discussion as I recall

54:54
agree Phil

55:01
Support

01:00:14
Sub A agreed to keep Rec 6 as is and noted for full WG some comments where there was request to consider ‘marks contained’ variation but the subgroup passed this along as is

01:09:58
No

01:10:21
can I get phone unmuted there and I will unmute here

01:10:45
Paul’s proposal: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-August/004417.html

01:13:12
who is going to decide what is fair?

01:14:55
so example with police.city will be a subject to such DRP? (city might have it at lower price than all sunrise registrations

01:15:23
and for example 5 USD for city are lower than 60USD for sunrise

01:17:38
I can't speak for Paul maxim, but I think police.eyewear or police.specatacles would be captured and policy.city would probably not

01:18:59
sorry! police.city

01:19:14
then it should be in the proposal

01:20:06
I think that is covered in safeguard bullet 3

01:22:22
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-04jun12-en.pdf

01:27:16
yes

01:34:13
for example - higher price is formally a +1 USD higher price , and since the panel goes for a formal review - it is a bad idea

01:37:42
I agree with the concern about eliminating the "or." Right now "unfair advantage" is constrained by the requirement of infringing registrations, but the proposal eliminates that constraint and leaves only the open ended "unfair."

01:38:05
the last bullet - is loaded, the second part. if the policy or procedure is breached, there are mechanisms to enforce it

01:38:41
there are no undermining , it is either policy compliant behaviour, or not

01:39:54
was a concern of mine, yes

01:41:07
@Susan +1

01:43:55
also Registries are prohibited from using TMCH - how do they know what is TM or not?

01:43:59
agree with what Greg says re a singular example; the PDDRP is geared towards systemic issues

01:44:00
Correct Greg! The TM-PDDRP has a pattern/practice component baked into it. This is not for one-off events.

01:45:11
I will

01:45:22
With focus and wordsmithing in small group they should have the opportunity to address the issues raised on the call by David and Maxim today. The need to address the issue merits that opportunity

01:46:13
It's certainly a great start - thanks Paul. While I support it, I would also support it being given to a small group to finesse it.

01:49:38
I will volunteer for this small team as well

01:49:55
me too

01:50:17
me three

01:50:29
I'll join as well

01:50:33
Thanks David, Susan, and Greg!

01:50:36
and Zak

01:50:45
Thanks Phil!

01:50:58
That concludes the agenda for the day

01:51:21
Special thanks to staff today from me for help reading Sub A materials

01:51:23
Next call: Thursday, 20 August 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

01:52:02
I will send apologies now for Thursday's call - on the road home

01:52:31
Thanks Phil and all

01:52:45
bye all