Of the 8 applications that failed initial evaluation in technical section, 4 failed due to multiple technical evaluation questions, and 3 of those 4 also failed financial evaluation. In these 4 multiple-questions failure there are some brand TLDs who didn't grasp the concept of operating a registry instead of operating DNS services for a domain and one applicant that just didn't respond to CQs in time. Of the 4 that failed due to a single question, there were: Q28 (Abuse prevention and mitigation): Applicant submitted a change request, but Q28 was not updated in line with that change request. Q31 (Technical overview of the registry): Not disclosed in the report what was the failure Q35 (DNS service): Not disclosed in the report what was the failure Q40 (Registry Transition): Insufficient information in response to CQs Questions 31, 35 and 40 and the applications that failed multiple questions are likely addressed by RSP program; the only question that from the IE reports could deserve some attention is about abuse prevention and mitigation. At the time AGB was create there were no PICs; abuse measurement were after the fact included as Spec 11 3b. We have two paths we can go here: 1) Considering Spec 11 3b and Spec 6 item 4 (Abuse Mitigation) as superseding what was meant to be obtained by Q28 2) Considering that Q28 is still relevant Preferences between those two ? Note that even outsourced registries do not have to outsource abuse mitigation to the same provider; that could be a different provider. Rubens