<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">WG Members:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would like to remind folks that our Phase 1 charter defines the RPMs for us to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We are not chartered to evaluate Commercial Online Protection Services; Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry Protections; Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary Registry RPMs; or even Private RPMs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">With that said, I have long agreed that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review. With that context in mind, I offer the suggested changes to the proposed draft questions in the attached. I deleted certain references/questions about how/whether ICANN approves such additional private protections; whether they are consistent with policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that wasn't approved and how it may relate to some additional protections currently offered. Some of those questions and commentary are superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand and would just lead us down a proverbial rabbit hole. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What I hope we want from the sub-group is information about additional protections in the marketplace to help inform our task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an attempt at an extra-charter review of individual registries services. I am supportive of the former and happy to provide information as such, but am definitely opposed to the latter. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Unfortunately, I am taking a red-eye flight on Wednesday and will not be available for our next call. I would appreciate this issue being kicked to the following call if there is any need for discussion of the group. Much appreciated. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jon</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>