All, As time is short, I want to try and cover this via email. The first minor edit proposed by the BC is this: Page 9 (223-224) IPC As a friendly amendment, the final sentence doesn't seem to add anything but confusion. P/P providers do not need the EPDP's permission to use a pseudonumized email address. The word "also" is particularly problematic as it could be interpreted as "in addition to the RDDS data" (mentioned in the preceding sentence). We think this recommendation is clearer with this sentence removed. Friendly amendment: for clarity, strike final sentence in this recommendation. I think the last sentence is important to have, clarifying that a pseudonymized email may be provided in the response. I understand this is a practice among some P/P providers. Similar language was used in the original phase 1 recommendation# 14 that this is intended to replace. Is the word "also" the main problem... could concerns be addressed by just removing that word? Thanks, Marc