The discussion initiated by Alan Woods' proposal on behalf of the RySG to remove Appendix C from EPDP Scope has caused me to think about what we are doing in the EPDP. The EPDP Charter sets the stage by setting out mission "This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law." The triage document reinforces this with "which includes items that have the Full Consensus support of the EPDP Team that these should be adopted as is (with no further discussion or modifications needed)". The GNSO Recommends policy to the ICANN Board and that is what we are here to do. People questioned why this was called a "Temporary Specification". It is because that is exactly what it is It is temporary due to the 1 year lifetime, and it is a Specification because that is what we call addenda to the Registry and Registrar contracts (the Ry agreement currently has 12 of them and the 2013 RAA 8). It is natural that this contract document be formatted as it is, with appendices and such. Our job is to write policy and it need not be in the final form to be inserted into contracts. But if we choose to write the policy in its "final form", that is fine, but we will need to identify where there are terms that are beyond those in the picket fence that we can specify in consensus policy and will need to be negotiated (or otherwise drafted and deemed to be acceptable to ICANN and contracted parties). I don't much care what form we deliver our end product in (ie as a policy requiring significant drafting to be inserted in the contracts, or ready to go (to the extent that the content is within scope). But I think we will make far more productive use of our time if we do not spend time debating the exact form now and concentrate on the substance that we need to agree on regardless of the for, Alan