Hi all I had a look at the table on page 4, that I tried without success to paste in this email. It looks that about 10% of the cases have been reported by IP (intellectual property, not internet protocol), which make sense, about 12% by the registrant, which seems low, but what really puzzles me is the 60+% of “others”. Since this is by far the largest group, it would be nice to have an idea of what type of reporters it might include. I understand that this field is selected by the complainant, probably with a drop-down menu, or other way, but would it not be interesting to provide, instead of the “Other” option, a blank field to be filled in (or a blank field prompted when the “Other” option is selected? Thanks, Roberto On 19.01.2022, at 02:42, Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: The Accuracy Scoping team submitted 25 questions to ICANN Org. and we have now received the responses. They are attached here. This will be BRIEFLY presented on the meeting this week, but not in any detail. If anyone has any comments or follow-up questions, please let me know. Alan<ICANN_Org Responses.pdf>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.