Hi Kurt and Small Team Members: We have a few updates for you. Re: EPDP Interview Statuses: * Thank you for updating Avri and Chris's notes. The Google docs have been sent to them individually, and they have been asked to provide edits by Friday, if possible. * Despite several attempts, we haven't received a response from Brian King, so we propose to close out this interview attempt unless anyone objects. * There is one remaining interview for EPDP P1 and P2, and that is with a panel of ICANN staff that supported either one or both phases. This is scheduled for next Tuesday at 16:00 UTC. I don't believe the small team has prepared specific questions for staff, so this may be worth thinking about beforehand. (I'm sure staff would also appreciate some draft questions in advance. Here are the WG and Board questions in case they are helpful): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r09F17K87SLrRB60gkRHylihrH-zCPC2o_3eP6_b... Re: Notes from Interviews: Here are the notes from the interviewees, minus board members. We will include the board members in these folders once they have approved the notes: EPDP Phase 1: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bMd2Z5oxoorgtxAmcHkyFv7T5HaINYxz EPDP Phase 2: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/195y2p2AtJ_KZZSe9Mh_xBeCJlw3Ks2rE Re: Findings/Recommendations: Thank you for the suggestion to draft initial findings/recommendations from the interviews conducted to date. It makes sense to review the full set of EPDP (RegData) interviews before proceeding with SubPro interviews since the EPDP interviews are fresher at this point. Considering what the small team's findings are up to this point will likely help everyone better prepare for any future interviews or consider if updates are needed to the methodology. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know if we can provide additional assistance. Kind regards, John and Caitlin -- Hi Caitlin, John and everyone: We’ve essentially come to the end of our round of interviews. “Essentially” because we are still trying to arrange an interview with Brian King. If that fails, I think we will close out thi phase without an IPC interview. While we arrange for the SubPro round of interviews, I think we should: ONE: Touch up the questions a bit. For instance, the question on surprise, first asked generally about all recommendations, should then be directed a bit, asking questions regarding recommendations the Board didn’t understand, stated were violative of Bylaws, were too expensive, were difficult to implements written, and so on Please suggest amendments to questions for the SubPro interviews. I’ll come back to this group with my own suggestions. TWO (most importantly): I think we should draft our findings / recommendations, based on interviews to date. I’ll create a draft, but please prepare your bullet points (which should include authority, i.e., point to interview responses from which you drew your conclusions). For this, I think I will read the notes from the interviews, rather than the summaries. It is up to you to choose your source material. Caitlin or John, could you re-point me to the wiki where the notes are kept? (I should say re-point me to that. THREE: There are a couple interviewees I’d like to add as detached, objective, yet active members: Christa Taylor (who led one of the small teams created, and Marc Trachtenberg, who was dispassionate and clear in his opinions of issues and the process. Both wanted to move the process forward. Let me know if you disagree; I will take that constructively. (Actually, going down the list of participants, there are a lot of good candidates. . I hope everyone finds this as constructive direction. Please let me know if you have something additional or an amendment. Best regards, Kurt