<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div><div>Following our call yesterday, please find attached the updated templates for Category B – questions 1 & 2. Please review these templates to make sure the WG discussions have been accurately reflected and feel free to share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. We've created a page on the wiki where we'll post the templates that have been finalised for now (noting that for some of these the WG will need to come back to the template at a later date), see <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg">https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg</a>. </div><div><br></div><div>The WG will continue its deliberations on Category B – Question 2 next week. Some of the questions that came up during the conversation yesterday and which you are encouraged to share your views on (and/or add additional questions that need to be considered in this context) are:</div><ul><li>What would be the arguments for not using the same standards / requirements for validation and verification as per the 2013 RAA?</li><li>Should there be a requirement for re-verification, and if so, what instances would trigger such re-verification?</li><li>In case of affliction between the P/P service and the registrar, if the registration information has already been verified by the registrar, should this exempt the P/P provider from doing so?</li><li>Should the same requirements apply to privacy and proxy services or is there a reason to distinguish between the two?</li></ul><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div></body></html>