<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a name="_MailEndCompose">In regard to this---<o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>As the consensus recommendations as well as the consensus levels had been settled on at the 21 June meeting, we had hoped that the time between then and 9 July might be sufficient for those
wishing to file minority statements (especially since these are not edited or reviewed). However, should any member wish to have more time for this purpose, may we suggest that those wishing to file minority statements at least notify the group by Monday 9
July so that staff can add a tentative placeholder to the relevant Annex, noting that a certain number of minority statements are likely to be filed?<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">In my own case, I departed for Panama less than 72 hours after the conclusion of that 6/21 WG call, had many loose ends to tie up prior to travel, and was engaged about ten hours per day once
I arrived in Panama. Further, it was always my intent to defer drafting of a Minority Statement until after a proposed final text was received from staff, which was not until the evening of July 2<sup>nd</sup> (and that is by no means a criticism of staff,
as I know the long hours they were working in Panama).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b>So I am notifying the WG now that I intend to file a Minority Statement and need some additional time past July 9<sup>th</sup> to complete its drafting and obtain internal approval for submission
– and therefore request a placeholder for it in the relevant Annex. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Thanks, Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">12061 Bluemont Way<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong<br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 6:13 PM<br>
To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos comments on July 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 3 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report)</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear George and Phil,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thank you for your comments and questions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regarding the date of the GNSO Council call and the expected deadline for delivery of our Final Report - in our experience, the Council has never changed a scheduled date for a Council meeting to accommodate the submission of a PDP report.
That said, if the Working Group as a whole (including Petter as chair and Susan as Council liaison) wish to request for an extension to the 9 July deadline, our recommendation is that it be a formal request from Petter on the group's behalf, sent through Susan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regarding minority statements - staff had suggested a possible deadline of 1200 UTC on Monday 9 July to try to have as much of the Final Report completed as possible. As the consensus recommendations as well as the consensus levels had
been settled on at the 21 June meeting, we had hoped that the time between then and 9 July might be sufficient for those wishing to file minority statements (especially since these are not edited or reviewed). However, should any member wish to have more time
for this purpose, may we suggest that those wishing to file minority statements at least notify the group by Monday 9 July so that staff can add a tentative placeholder to the relevant Annex, noting that a certain number of minority statements are likely to
be filed?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regarding Word v PDF - typically, staff works on documents in Word format which are then converted into PDF for submission and distribution. That is why we had requested that minority statements be sent in Word format, but I should think
we can also work with PDF formats if that is how a member wishes to send in his/her minority statement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We note that George's comments include notes on consistency, typos and similar errors (for which we are grateful) as well as more substantive suggestions. We suggest that the Thursday call focus on the substantive suggestions, and will
do our best to provide a list to work through on the call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Mary & Steve<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 7/4/18, 16:09, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20icann@leap.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org
on behalf of icann@leap.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Hi folks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> This is the part 3 of my comments on the July 2, 2018 draft final<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> report. The earlier parts are at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html</span></a> (part 1)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html</span></a> (part 2)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> This was all based on a single pass through the entire document. I<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> don't plan to do any further passes through it before tomorrow's call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Tomorrow's call was scheduled for only 1 hour. I think we should<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> expand it to at least 90 minutes (our normal call length), or even 2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> hours, to try to get as much agreement as possible on all points<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (including concerns from others about the current draft). i.e. we can<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> work faster over the phone in real-time than we can via email (which<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> is asynchronous).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (all page references relative to "Clean" PDF version of July 2, 2018<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> draft, unless otherwise stated)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 25. page 33, first paragraph: for INGOs, it would be Recommendation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> #1(a) (note just #1), since we added a 1(b) for IGOs since the earlier<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> draft of this report).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 26. page 34: Cost: I don't think it's correct to say that it's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> "outside the remit of the Working Group Charter." Also, it's not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> correct to call it a "preliminary" conclusion, as this is a final<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> consensus recommendation, and no longer "preliminary.".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 27. (no page in particular) I don't this had been pointed out before<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> by anyone in this PDP, but the probability of a court action by a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> registrant after an adverse URS decision is actually lower than that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> for an adverse UDRP, because the URS has a built-in review/appeal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> mechanism that can be utilized, before a registrant need escalate to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the courts. Might be worth putting into a footnote somewhere (where we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> talk about probabilities being 'rare', etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 28. page 44: middle column (at bottom) says .."and no change to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> URS". Of course Recommendation 5 will have a slight change (set aside<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the URS decision if immunity asserted), so that language should change<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> slightly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 29. page 48-49: the new text at the bottom of page 48 ("more fully<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> described in Section 2.1 above") should be deleted, as those options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> at the time were *different* (e.g. Option #4 from Zak came in December<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 2017). The third paragraph even notes this. If we want to retain those<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> words, they can be moved to the first line of the last paragraph of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> page 49, i.e. immediately after "During the Working Group's discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> of these six options".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 30. page 51: 2nd paragraph: (a) first, "to confirm that there was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> consensus on the other recommendations listed above" is entirely<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> false, given that the text of those recommendations has evolved, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> was never "confirmed" either. I would rewrite as:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> "…, and to ATTEMPT TO confirm that there was consensus on the other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> first four recommendations." (removing the words "listed above").<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (b) continuing, the May 25, 2018 meeting description is complete<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> fiction, because at that point no designations had been made! THe very<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> first time designations were made was on June 9, 2018:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Essentially, that entire paragraph is not accurate. What really<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> happened, is that the Summary Report (referenced on page 50) was not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> well received. Remember, I wrote a long rant about "Everything Wrong<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> with the IGO PDP Summary Report"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Then, there was essentially a "Public Display of Possible Consensus",<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> where PDP members who were concerned about the accuracy and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> inclusiveness (whether their input had even been captured) of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Summary Report openly and transparently shared their views on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> mailing list, see:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Then, realizing that we were actually capable of reaching consensus<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> (unlike the Summary Report, which saw things more divided), the May<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 10th and May 25th meetings were focused on revising the text of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> recommendations. Then, on May 25, 2018, a two week process was started<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> whereby members were once again encouraged to share their views on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> public mailing list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the 6 options for the Recommendation #5).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Then, on June 9, 2018 set his initial designation levels after<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> reviewing all the emails, after which we engaged in an iterative<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> process of revising the text of the recommendations and revising the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 21, 2018).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> You'll note I was careful to not call the May 25, 2018 a "Consensus<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Call", since it never really was! (happy to refer to it as a "two week<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> process", as a compromise; if you want to call it a "Consensus Call",<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> be sure to add a footnote that that was one of the issues in dispute<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> in the 2nd Section 3.7 appeal made on June 10, 2018).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> The third paragraph on page 51 is fine, but the 2nd needs to be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> completely rewritten, to reflect the truth, and not the current<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> fiction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Here's my attempt to write it, as diplomatically as possible:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ---- start of new paragraph 2 on page 51 --------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy, transparency and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> inclusiveness of the Summary Report. After discussions on the mailing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> list, it became evident that more members of the PDP were willing to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> engage further on the remaining issues than originally was recorded,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> and that it might be feasible to reach consensus on all 5<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> recommendations. The Working Group held meetings on 10 & 25 May 2018<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> to further revise the language of the proposed recommendations. After<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the 25 May 2018 meeting, a two week process was started whereby PDP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> members were encouraged to share their views on the public mailing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including the 6 options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> for Recommendation 5). On June 9, 2018, after reviewing the emails of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> the prior 2 weeks, the remaining Working Group chair (can keep the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> footnote referencing's Phil's resignation), set the initial<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> designations of consensus levels, consistent with the requirements of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Section 3.6 of Working Group Guidelines for a Consensus Call. The<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Working Group held further meetings on 12 & 21 June 2018, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> discussions on the mailing list, engaging in the iterative process of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> further revising the text of the recommendations and revising the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 21, 2018), while also agreeing on the appropriate designations levels<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> for the proposals that did not attain consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ---- end of new paragraph 2 on page 51 --------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> That's about as diplomatic as I can make it, without bringing in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 2nd Section 3.7 appeal, arguing over what a "Consensus Call" is, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 31. page 56, 3rd paragraph "The Working Group scheduled community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting that took place after its<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> formation" --- not correct, as there were no calls during the Panama<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> meeting (and I don't think was a session at the prior meeting either).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Easiest fix is to remove the word "each" and make "Meeting" be plural<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> "Meetings", leaving it more correct than it is as present.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Alternatively, change "each" to "most" (and still make "Meetings"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> plural)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 32. page 58: Phil Corwin's affiliation is listed as "BC", whereas it<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> should be "RySG" since he's moved to Verisign. The Wiki page should<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> also be updated (his SOI has been updated, but the table listing the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> members/affiliations hadn't been).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 33. page 58: in the table listing all the constituencies, "CBUC"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> should be changed to "BC" (to reflect the acronyms being used on pages<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 57-58). Or, alternatively, change "BC" to "CBUC" for all the relevant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> members on pages 57-58.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 34. page 62: might want to add a footnote/asterisk next to Phil's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> name, given he resigned as co-chair, as was done earlier in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> document.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=hvdcEbpTZiawFVGJwqqOF-wTrY9iI-iwODBhZOLDEZ0&s=clWbBxJT-f8Pu2z6x06q2i14dZqbxPAj35dgPeqzkFI&e">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=hvdcEbpTZiawFVGJwqqOF-wTrY9iI-iwODBhZOLDEZ0&s=clWbBxJT-f8Pu2z6x06q2i14dZqbxPAj35dgPeqzkFI&e</span></a>=<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>