<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>WG Members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Per our call yesterday and to further refine the use case to request metrics for a future IRTP Review, please find attached PDFs the IRTP-B,C,D Final reports. As we discussed, it may benefit the group that we spend extra time to become more familiar with the previous PDP efforts to better enhance the reporting requirements listed in the draft request. In essence, we are pretending that this WG is that future review team. In the review of the following materials, it will not be prudent to read the entire Final Reports. Therefore, I suggest just reviewing the WG’s deliberation sections and their subsequent recommendations. You can also refer to the Executive Summaries, but details will be missed to better understand how recommendations were formulated. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>All WG proposed consensus recommendations have been approved by the GNSO Council. Only IRTP-B is close to completed implementation. IRTP-C is currently with staff, and IRTP-D is pending ICANN Board deliberations and approval.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>IRTP-B:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-b">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-b</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Refer to Section 5 (starting on p.14)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>IRTP-C:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-c">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-c</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Refer to Section 5 (starting on p.23)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>IRTP-D:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Refer to Section 4 (starting on p.11) <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you. B<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Berry A. Cobb<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>720.839.5735<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:mail@berrycobb.com">mail@berrycobb.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>@berrycobb<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>