Olivier, Jonathan, colleagues, My apologies as I am unable to join the CPWG 5 Sep call because of a clash with another PDP WG call. I am thus proffering a written update on the sections which I am involved in along with a couple of suggestions for consideration/discussion:- *1) Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.xa8q4lfmg32r>* We have had some inputs from various people to this topic (aka Batching Applications) -- while a majority seem to favour continuation of rounds (applications vs assessment) mainly for the purpose of allowing correction of deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups, as well as effective contention identification/resolution and CPE, a minority does not believe rounds are necessary to achieve the intended outcomes. *Option 1 'Lowest common denominator' for full consensus* Last week I mentioned the possibility of approaching drafting a response on the basis of a 'lowest common denominator'. How this might work, is to ask whether the minority view foresees that the harm in NOT having rounds (if any) outweighs that of continuing the program in rounds, as ultimately, I heard that even the minority view agrees that there needs to be some way to seamlessly introduce corrections to deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups. *Option 2 Majority with Minority Views* Or alternatively, we could attempt a statement which presents a majority view (still consensus, though not full consensus) and a minority view. I am wondering which option would CPWG members prefer to move forward with? *2) Section 2.5.4 Applicant Support <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.2f9cd5dl0p3z>* We have had some input from a number of CPWG members (and non-members too I think) and I believe they all generally point to the conclusion that the ASP is still very much needed but that it was too inaccessible in the 2012 rounds. I am grateful that *Tijani Ben Jemaa* has kindly agreed to take the lead in raising to the CPWG's attention any issues pertaining to Applicant Support for discussion at this 5 Sep call. Separately, I am happy to inform that as of today, two of the three 2012 round Applicant Support applicants' representatives have responded to my request for feedback on their experience with the ASP in the 2012 round <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6A...>. I believe the co-penholders for this section are still reviewing these 2 responses at this point. *3) Section 2.8.1 Objections <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.d7zml899mrar>* I have completed my input to the preliminary recommendations and questions under the topic of Objections and currently await comments to the same. The inputs touch mainly on the GAC Advice mechanism (Alan Greenberg also commented), the role of the Independent Objector, and objections by ALAC / Community Objections. I have not provided input to String Objection or Legal Rights Objection as I believe these are beyond the scope of At-Large. 4) *Section 2.9.1 Community Applications (CPE)* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6A...> This topic has also received input from a number of CPWG members and I understand the discussion is now centered around the need for a more workable definition of 'community'. *Another Suggestion, relating to CC2* Another suggestion that I would like to propose for consideration is to look back at ALAC's New gTLD SubPro CC2 comments, and extract comments for topics which fall outside the sections being addressed by the CPWG currently AND where those comments remain relevant, that they be included in ALAC's statement to the (present) SubPro's August Initial Report. The reason I am proposing this is two-fold: (1) for a more complete statement and (2) I believe there are comments in CC2 which are worth repeating for our present purposes. I would be happy to undertake said extraction in the event there is majority support for this suggestion. I bid you all a good meeting. Regards, Justine Chew ----