Dear Colleagues, As I mentioned during the call, here come few more documents regarding IRP SP: Updated draft Terms of Reference, incorporating input received to date (most recently from the GAC) as well as two comments from ICANN org on the GAC’s questions about the role of the Empowered Community and document disclosure – basically: while the EC may be a Claimant in an IRP, the formation and selection of the Standing Panel is not an EC action; and requests for document disclosure will be handled in accordance with ICANN org’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). Notes from the 2 September call where the composition and criteria for appointment to the Community Representatives Group as well as a possible timeline were discussed. The list of criteria and requirements for IRP panelists that were published along with the call for Expressions of Interest. Please review and provide comments on: The proposal that emerged on the call, as regards the Community Representatives Group (viz. “The Community Representatives Group should be a small, lightweight, odd-numbered group of between 7-15 members, who [in the aggregate] have [the following agreed] expertise and who, as far as possible, represents a diversity of stakeholders and interests across the ICANN community. The size of the group is less important than the skillsets/expertise of the members on the group”; and The type of expertise which the Community Representatives Group should possess in the aggregate (three of which, identified on the call, have been captured in the notes). Please let me know your thoughts as soon as possible! Thank you! ]{atrina