hello all

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

The current meeting schedule will continue through August: Tuesdays at 13:00 UTC and Thursdays at 17:00 UTC. The invites will be sent shortly.

I agree with Greg on TMCH vs anxillary db

Sorry for joining late, had another call run long

@Massimo - this PDP doesn’t extend to making policy for anything other than mandatory RPMs. Any additional non-mandatory services that the TMCH provider or a registry operator may wish to offer will therefore generally be limited by the scope of its contract with ICANN org.

Thank you

That’s correct, Phil. Since the WG is so far along the drafting route, staff is simply reminding the group that the AGB is actually an implementation document - and that its “style” will ideally have to be consistent across the entire document (which is an implementation question).

So it may be clearer for the IRT to have the PDP WG enunciate clear policy principles, with suggested accompanying AGB proposed text.

Greg, maybe you can help tweak?

Kathy, happy to help.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=1771837429

The only potentially new idea I’m seeing here is the idea of subsidies for certain users of the RPMs, but not sure it is worth focusing on this

The spreadsheet is still loading

Internet is slow

+1 @Phil

agree about the form. the form is too much for most and nearly impossible for those not entrenched in ICANN policy.

the space limits are not realistic. appreciate that staff needs an efficient form of collection but this is not it.

have to drop the call, bye all

Kathy +1

Also want to acknowledge that staff has been very cooperative when space limits have been exceeded.

It was very problematic too here and very time consuming

To be clear, staff is not saying the WG should not provide feedback on methodology; we are suggesting that it be done through the Council liaison and not be made part of the PDP report, especially since the method was used by the EPDP Team and the SubPro group.

Let's write it up for now... and then work on next steps to come!

I'm back

Back to you, Phil.

I think the way we set up phase 1 and phase 2 work, any discussion of that would have been deferred to P2. Good to discuss

staff hand up

Technology. Love it / Hate it.

Hand up

.XXX

This is the question that staff mentioned verbally. Pasted here: “How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations?”

I agree with Susan on this.

We don't have the data.

We reach the end of the spreadsheet!

(knowing we return to a few)

Thanks Phil, Kathy and Staff!

Next Meeting: Tuesday, 04 August at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes

Agenda to be circulated shortly

Thanks Phil, Kathy, staff and all

Tx Phil and glad you were able to come back online.

Thanks Phil & Kathy, bye all

Thanks Phil & All!

or get to another call