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

Staff will help with this

Thank you Julie

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

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

I can see it

I can too.

and I still see it

I can too

agreed and Q 2 relates

Zoom is quirky today...

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

That's right we passed that along from Sub A

Hand up

Thanks Ariel -

np

Agree with Phil.

Thanks Phil, that appears consistent with discussion as I recall

agree Phil

Support

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

No

can I get phone unmuted there and I will unmute here

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

who is going to decide what is fair?

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

and for example 5 USD for city are lower than 60USD for sunrise

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

sorry! police.city

then it should be in the proposal

I think that is covered in safeguard bullet 3

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

yes

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

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."

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

there are no undermining , it is either policy compliant behaviour, or not

was a concern of mine, yes

@Susan +1

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

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

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

I will

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

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.

I will volunteer for this small team as well

me too

me three

I'll join as well

Thanks David, Susan, and Greg!

and Zak

Thanks Phil!

That concludes the agenda for the day

Special thanks to staff today from me for help reading Sub A materials

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

I will send apologies now for Thursday's call - on the road home

Thanks Phil and all

bye all