Dear Council colleagues, I would like to make a comment in relation to Item 7 (WHOIS conflicts with national laws) on our agenda today. I had to drop from the AC room so was not able to raise my hand, and in the interests of time we moved very swiftly on to Item 8 before I interrupted via the bridge. I would like to express disappointment at the fact that we didn't manage to separate the two issues of entire policy/IAG proposal re trigger in our discussion today. As our agenda was drafted, our discussion today should have dealt purely with the matter of the IAG's proposed modification to the procedure, which I understand do not affect the underlying policy. If this fact (that they do not affect the underlying policy) is a reason for rejecting the proposal, then that needs to be stated explicitly to stay within our agenda. While I appreciate that we set the timeline here (ie, we are not subject to an outside timeline constraint), the fact of the matter is that the IAG was formed, it conducted its work, developed a Final Report, and communicated that Final Report to Council. As is how we do things, now it falls on us to consider the proposal in that Final Report and reach some decision on it. I suggest in our September meeting that we put the Final Report with its proposal on our agenda for determination. We debate it, reach a conclusion as to its conformity with the underlying policy if this is appropriate, and conclude this matter. If there is a desire to review/revise the substantive policy, this needs to be done through the appropriate processes as per the Bylaws. Otherwise, we undermine the IAG specifically and the way GNSO policy is made more generally. I make these comments without intending any particular outcome as regards the IAG's proposal, but rather out of concern for preserving our working methods from disintegration, both from without and from within. Thank you for considering this comment, albeit delayed. Many thanks and best wishes, Heather