<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>Please complete the following poll by <b><span style='color:red'>Tuesday 10 March 2015</span></b><span style='color:red'> </span>to determine whether the WG should proceed with the IRTP-D use case. As discussed in the last call, this exercise may not have direct influence on draft recommendations and/or the tasks ahead to enhance WG work products (Issue Report, Charter, Final Report/Recommendations), but it could perhaps shed light on elements that we may not have considered. Either way, it is up to the WG to determine this next step. Should the WG choose to advance this further:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Determine whether the DMPM WG wishes to proceed with the IRTP-D Use case. If so, the intent is to improve upon the current draft before distribution to the SGs/Cs of the GNSO:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1) IRTP-D WG for feedback/input<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2) Registrars for feedback/input<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3) SGs/Cs for feedback<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As a reminder, this is not an actual request, but only a use-case based on a potential future request as outlined in one of the IRTP-D WG recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regardless of the WG’s chosen direction, the draft form (with improvements) will still act as one of the WG’s deliverables for the Initial Report.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The Doodle poll: <a href="http://doodle.com/k8e86wdh82zgk87g">http://doodle.com/k8e86wdh82zgk87g</a><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>