<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><br class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="color: purple;" class="">Regarding the Monday call,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u class="">certainly the .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL strings are very much involved in the issue of Name Collision policy being developed by this Working Group</u>. As mentioned, the JAS Final Report contained a recommendation against these strings. (See attached.) While Sub Pro Leadership has always taken the view that Controlled Interruption is an adequate remedy for all name collision issues and that applicants should be able to propose individual name collision mitigation plans to ICANN org, that is not a good reason to ban WG discussion of these strings or the status of these applications<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u class="">which have not been withdrawn:<o:p class=""></o:p></u></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><u class=""><span style="color: purple;" class=""><o:p class=""><span style="text-decoration: none;" class=""> </span></o:p></span></u></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Not speaking as SubPro leadership but as GNSO Councillor, any mention to the .HOME/.CORP/.MAIL name collision issue in the SubPor final report will make it receive a down vote, referring it back to the WG. Going out the group charter is a strong no-no for the Council in its role as PDP manager, a view that has been consistently shared by all SGs. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>