FYI I'm trying to get on the phone and the phone link says the meeting isn't started.

Wiki Agenda Page: https://community.icann.org/x/b5aGBg

It says "try again later."

I can hear you on the computer but I can't talk this way.

@Rebecca, That is strange. I can dial out to you if you would like.

Sure, that would be great. 703 593 6759. Thanks.

Thank you, dialing now

Got it, thanks.

You’re welcome!

Rebecca, it now shows that you are connected by phone and by computer microphone. You might want to mute your PC.

follow up question

Sorry my phone audio dropped

Sorry I'm late everyone

I’m sorry, what number did you try to call? Or did you try to have the meeting dial out to you?

My apologies, that was for Claudio

To CoChairs, then, thanks!

This is Mary’s email circulating Compliance’s responses to the questions related to Proposal #6: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-May/000341.html

Currently displayed on the screen

Can someone page this answer down?

@Kathy: It might be easier if you just look at the link from Ariel?

Tx for the page down!

No.

"absolutely" is wrong; "probably" or "likely" would fit in the sentence is drafted.

Then I misunderstoood.

as drafted, apologies.

That would work for me.

To be clear, I'm not that bothered by the whole hting either, but just trying to understand.

One thing I was contemplating on my drive in was making it very clear where we had rough consensus.

Here, you're right that we don't have consensus.

Some of us think it's working, some do not.

So the first bit does make it clear that we don't have consensus.

@Kathy: Yes they are synced

good - tx, so we can refer to either one?

We recommend using the status check doc as it is easier to read through the proposed answers & preliminary recommendations, for your convenience

@All: Time check — this meeting will end at 5 minutes to the top of the hour to allow for a transition to the next call.

I'll remind everyone that our brand friends are largely at INTA, but they (the ones this mechanism was designed to protect) are all in the "we think it's mostly working" camp.

(Meaning they haven't observed "misses" by Rrs to date).

Suggestion: Q1A: "The Sub Team determined that the service is at least "possibly" having its intended effect, but with limited data the Sub Team cannot answer the question definitively."

@Kristine, my comment was about the level of intended effect. I'm not suggesting Claims isn't valuable

Tx Roger -- the phrasing makes sense to me.

@Claudio...I don't think we can get that from compliance, thought. Even if it was in scope.

I would suggest the following wording for the Q1 answer: "Some members of the Sub Team believe that the service is "probably" having its intended effect, while others believe it is at best "possibly" having its intended effect."

I would be fine with that amendment.

+1 Kathy

^@Kathy

Kepp, with "but"

to Q3(a) Delete?

they didn't get it

To follow up with Kathy;s suggestion; Proposed language for 3A: While the Trademark Claims Notice does on its face inform registrants of matching trademarks, there are significant shortcomings with the nature of the notice as set out below."

@Rebecca, but we have strong concerns that those surveyed weren't actually potential DN registrants., They didn't konw what they were seeing at all because they reallly didn't get the context.

@All: Time check. We have 1 minute.

I'm OK with Zak's wording.

I like Zak's start

It does not do what it is supposed to do.

If you don't believe those were registrants we have multiple problems, but then we have no relevant data.

And thus can't say that it is working.

Note that the aqctual language of Q3A leaves openj to the reader's perspective, what the "intended purpose is". Is it to fairly inform registrants, or just to notify them...?