Chuck, see replies below.

Philip

Last paragraph on page 9

I am not totally clear on what "Agreed" means.
This was a group of 70 most of whom spoke for themselves or their organisation. No attempt was made to assess support by GNSO constituency or other interest grouping. No votes were conducted. Agreed recommendations were supported unanimously or by a substantial majority present at the relevant meeting when that item was discussed, and then received insufficient objections to downgrade them.

Page 19, 1st paragraph

The reference to RAA clause 3.7.7.3 appears to me to cover the case when a registrant licenses use of a domain name registration to a proxy service provider but, if I understand correctly, there are also lots of cases where a proxy service provider is the actual registrant and the proxy service provider licences use of the domain name registration to what could be referred to as the underlying user of the name. Did the WG discuss the second scenario? The 'Agreed' statement says, "In order to avoid a third layer between the underlying Registrant and the OPOC, where a proxy service exists, the proxy and the first designated OPOC must be one and the same." Can I assume that 'underlying Registrant' could also mean the 'underlying licensee' in cases where the proxy service provider is actually the offical registrant?
The objective here is to avoid layers of obfuscation. All help from our service providers is welcome.

Page 24, Implementation Options

The last option is: "other e.g. good faith". When I combine this with the lead in before the bullets, it would say, "Reason for Request is a reasonable suspicion of good faith." Should this say 'lack of good faith' instead of 'good faith'?
Poor editing - apologies. No. The "good faith" was a later addition. It is misplaced with the lead in.

Page 27, Implementation Options

12 hour and 72 hour time frames seem awfully short in cases where a registrant may be traveling, etc. Did the WG discuss such time frames? Did the WG conclude that such time frames were reasonable?
The last bullet says, "Existing provisions in certain Registry agreements may provide an implementation solution." This is also stated elsewhere. What provisions are referenced here?
Implementation options are just that - options. I simply wanted to record the suggestions mentioned by group members but to make it clear they were NOT policy.

Page 53 ff