January 2021 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Reminder #2: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

All, Just to follow up, we want to ask that everyone be as specific as possible with the areas that they do not support. For example (and I am intentionally picking extreme examples here): 1. Lets say, for whatever reason, I do not support the recommendation that "Evaluation scores on all questions be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points on)", but I do support all of the other recommendation/implementation guidance in Topic 27. Rather than stating that "I do not support Topic 27", you should state "I Support all of the recommendations in Topic 27 except for Recommendation 27.2 because I believe that........" 1. Lets say that I do not support having an Applicant Support Program at all. But if there is an Applicant Support Program the recommendations / implementation guidance in the Working Group Final Report make sense. That is important information! So, rather than saying I do not support all of Topic 17, you should expressly state that "I do not support having an Applicant Support program, but if there is an Applicant Support program, then I would support the recommendations / implementation guidance in Topic 17." For the record I do support the program, I am just using an extreme example. Bottom line is that we ask you to be as specific as possible with the areas of non-support. Thanks. Jeff Neuman [cid:image003.png@01D6E420.EDCF98E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 9:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image005.png@01D6E420.EDCF98E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Minor error in SubPro report
by Emily Barabas Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

Hi Gg, Thanks for catching this. We will correct the error when we update the report to include outcomes of the consensus call. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Levine, Gertrude via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply to: "Levine, Gertrude" <glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy> Date: Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 23:48 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Minor error in SubPro report Hi Jeff and Cheryl, I have come across what appears to be a minor error in the SubPro final report. In the Summary of Outcomes on pages 267-268, Recommendation 9.1 references Specification 11 3(a)-(d) and includes footnote #295, which lists the relevant sections. However, the footnote lists what should be sections (a)-(d) as sections (e)-(f). The corresponding footnote in the body of the report on pages 37-38 lists the sections correctly. Best regards, Gg Gertrude “Gg” Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image001.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image002.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image003.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image004.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image005.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

1 0

String Similarity Recommendation
by Donna＠registry.godaddy Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

Jeff and Cheryl I'm in the process of reviewing the Final Report and I have a question regarding Recommendation 24.3 and the dot points that follow the recommendation. The last dot point appears inconsistent with the Recommendation and also inconsistent with my recollection of our discussions on this topic that concluded the meaning of the string could not be a determining factor. Perhaps I'm missing something so would appreciate clarification. Recommendation 24.3: The Working Group recommends updating the standards of both (a) confusing similarity to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name, and (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention, to address singular and plural versions of the same word, noting that this was an area where there was insufficient clarity in the 2012 round. Specifically, the Working Group recommends prohibiting plurals and singulars of the same word within the same language/script in order to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. For example, the TLDs .EXAMPLE156 and .EXAMPLES may not both be delegated because they are considered confusingly similar. This expands the scope of the String Similarity Review to encompass singulars/plurals of TLDs on a per-language/script basis. * An application for a single/plural variation of an existing TLD or Reserved Name will not be permitted if the intended use of the applied-for string is the single/plural version of the existing TLD or Reserved Name. For example, if there is an existing TLD .SPRINGS that is used in connection with elastic objects and a new application for .SPRING that is also intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, .SPRING will not be permitted. * If there is an application for the singular version of a word and an application for a plural version of the same word in the same language/script during the same application window, these applications will be placed in a contention set, because they are confusingly similar. * Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because they appear visually to be a single and plural of one another but have different intended uses. For example, .SPRING and .SPRINGS could both be allowed if one refers to the season and the other refers to elastic objects, because they are not singular and plural versions of the same word. However, if both are intended to be used in connection with the elastic object, then they will be placed into the same contention set. Similarly, if an existing TLD .SPRING is used in connection with the season and a new application for .SPRINGS is intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, the new application will not be automatically disqualified. Thanks Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:45 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fourth Topical Questions: String Similarity Outstanding Questions Notice: This email is from an external sender. All, This is the Fourth topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." The first was on Predictability, second on Applicant Support, third was the Guidebook, and this covers string similarity (Topic 24). Remember: We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 1. Intended Use Comments * Comments: Some commenters have expressed concerns about Recommendation 24.3 in that it calls for an evaluation of the "intended use" of an applied-for string to determine whether terms that appear to be the singular/plural of each other will be allowed to co-exist (our paraphrasing). * WG Recommendations i. Recommendation 24.3. ...Specifically, the Working Group recommends prohibiting plurals and singulars of the same word within the same language/script in order to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. For example, the TLDs .EXAMPLE74 and .EXAMPLES may not both be delegated because they are considered confusingly similar. This expands the scope of the String Similarity Review to encompass singulars/plurals of TLDs on a per-language/script basis. * An application for a single/plural variation of an existing TLD or Reserved Name will not be permitted if the intended use of the applied-for string is the single/plural version of the existing TLD or Reserved Name. For example, if there is an existing TLD .SPRINGS that is used in connection with elastic objects and a new application for .SPRING that is also intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, .SPRING will not be permitted... * Path Forward i. First, put aside for the moment the issues expressed by the Board on "content" and assume for now that we can make these recommendations. An e-mail later will address the content / bylaws issue. ii. Second, most of the Working Group had little/no issue when the Plural / Singular evaluation was between two brands or a brand and a generic application. * Examples: Apple (brand) / apples (generic); Caterpillar (Brand) / caterpillars (generic); Gap (brand) / gaps (generic); Whirlpool (Brand) / whirlpools (generic). iii. Remember also that we have added sections to the Report to now require that applicants describe their proposed use of a TLD in their application and that the evaluators can ask Clarifying questions if they are unable to ascertain the intended use from the Applicant Responses (IG 24.4). Finally, If both versions (singular/plural) are allowed, then both applicants (in the case where they are both applied for strings) or the 1 successful applicant (in the case where the application is for a singular/plural of an existing TLD) will have to agree to be bound by its commitment to use the TLD only in the manner in which it proposed in its application. * Again, please ignore the potential Bylaws issue FOR NOW. We promise that we will address this later. iv. Here are the options we have * Leave the language As-Is; * Ban the co-existence of Singulars and Plurals except for where either one or both of the strings are a Specification 13 (Brand TLD); or * Ban the co-existence of Singulars and Plurals regardless of intended use completely. v. Absent agreement on either 2 or 3, we will stick with the language that we have (Option 1). A lot of work has gone into this already so we need a good amount of support from within the Working Group to change. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Monday, December 7, 2020. Sincerely, Jeff & Cheryl SubPro Co-Chairs

2 1

Minor error in SubPro report
by Levine, Gertrude Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

Hi Jeff and Cheryl, I have come across what appears to be a minor error in the SubPro final report. In the Summary of Outcomes on pages 267-268, Recommendation 9.1 references Specification 11 3(a)-(d) and includes footnote #295, which lists the relevant sections. However, the footnote lists what should be sections (a)-(d) as sections (e)-(f). The corresponding footnote in the body of the report on pages 37-38 lists the sections correctly. Best regards, Gg Gertrude "Gg" Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image002.png@01D6E382.921D5DA0]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image003.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image004.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image005.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image006.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

1 0

FW: [Ext] Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 4, 2021

Jan. 4, 2021

Please see below, which is being shared with the mailing list to include on record. From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 12:47 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear Emily Please see below my revised 7 clarified statement Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, Revised /Clarification on my unqualified Consensus The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated This statement supersedes and replaces my earlier statement sent on 22 Decmber 2020 . Statement Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding, knowledge I wish to emphasize that and my above-mentioned unqualified consensus to the Report only and merely applies / covers those Recommendations which were concluded /adopted by CONSENSUS at the level of working group. For non consensus or partial consensus Recommendations I have no comments at this stage with my best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 22 Dec 2020, at 23:00, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding ,knowledge and mutual collaborations with my best regards Kavouss

1 0

Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 4, 2021

Jan. 4, 2021

Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6E27D.A776ABD0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0