I've gone through three workbooks now (Purposes A, B and C) and have noticed a significant error in all three of them. Whoever did the last revision of these documents has confused the question whether something is within ICANN's mission with the question whether it is lawful under GDPR. For example, in Purpose A, Purpose Rationale 1 asks, "1) If the purpose is based on an ICANN contract, is this lawful as tested against GDPR and other laws?" The answer provided has struck out all the appropriate language about 6.1.b vs 6.1.f, and has inserted: "Yes, this purpose is lawful based on ICANN's mission to coordinate the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System." It goes on to cite the RAA. Something similar has happened with Purposes B and C. Language about lawfulness under GDPR has been replaced with language about ICANN's mission or contracts. This is a mistake, and cannot stand. References to ICANN's mission and contracts tell us nothing about whether something is "lawful as tested against GDPR and other laws." Perhaps the staff and Kurt can clarify how this happened. NCSG members are preparing modified versions of the workbooks which correct the error, but it might be easier if whoever made these modifications would systematically reverse them. My problem is that I do not know what exact language regarding purpose rationale was accepted before these changes were made. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology