I wholeheartedly support Jim’s suggestion as it relates to face-to-face time at ICANN meetings. We should be advocating to Council (or our Council Liaisons should be doing so on our behalf) that we find as much time as possible at ICANN meetings to knock out these topics, as Jim says. I agree that there is a point during calls where folks seem to lose interest and drop off, but I feel that in some cases our calls just fall short of allowing us to wrap up discussion to a useful conclusion. So perhaps we can find a balance and building on Jim’s suggestion perhaps we can start with a notice for a 2 hour call with the option available to continue for another hour if determined by the Chair and the group that it would be productive to do so. Donna Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin@team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin@team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:19 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan Jeff and Cheryl Thanks for the updated workplan and the chance to provide feedback. It presents a clear, organized way to look at the path ahead. A tad intimidating, but knowing where we are going and when we are going there is helpful. I applaud the shift from aspirational timelines to what I would say is a worst case scenario timeline. It will hopefully avoid having to go back to Council and ask for further extensions. I also agree with Jeff’s assessment on Thursday’s call that there are probably areas where we can make up time and accelerate what is in the workplan. As to your suggestion about the need for extended calls at some point in April and further down the line, I share the concerns of others with how effective those will be. As others pointed out on the call – doing a meeting for that length, in one stretch can be taxing. My experience is that this exacerbated in an online environment. I recall we had some 3 hour calls when we operating in WTs and the productivity dropped significantly after the 90-120 minute mark. We were left with the leaders of the call essentially speaking to themselves. Not a productive use of time. My concern only increases when these calls fall in the middle of the night, which theoretically will happen for everyone at some point. It is simply not realistic to expect participants to commit to 4 hour meetings after putting in a full day’s work elsewhere. We also have to consider the increased burden this puts on our ICANN support team. As I understand, several people are already playing double duty and I’m worried about the impact 4 hour calls will have on them. I’m sure there is a lot that goes into prepping and following up on a call so it’s more than just a 4 hour commitment to them. The policy support team goes to great lengths to support us and others and that “no” is not in their vocabulary so I’m hoping people consider this on their behalf. As an alternative I would suggest two possible paths – 1) take advantage of the ICANN meetings where a critical mass of WT participants will be in the same room to try and knock out these topics. 2) for some topics, extend some calls to two hours and see how that goes. Two weeks of 2 hour calls = 5 - 90 minute calls instead of 4. Feedback on the timeline itself For ICANN 67, which is only 4 weeks away – we have “topics of interest GAC; areas where recs potentially conflict with GAC advice.” – How will this work? I don’t see how the GAC can react to recommendations when it’s clear from the timeline that many of the issues the GAC will probably be interested in (community applications, applicant support, registrant protections and Auctions) are not set to be addressed until after Cancun. Does the GAC know they need to have this ready for Cancun? As hard as they try, speed is not their forte. Also for ICANN67 – “GAC Advice” I’m assuming that refers to 2012 round advice. Has leadership considered ways to try and get early warnings of new and future advice from the GAC so we can head that off and avoid the long protracted process we saw last round with the ICANN Board and GAC going back and forth? People chuckled when I suggested that Sub Pro request GAC advice be finalized before the application window but what that would do is create a much more predicable environment for applicants and avoid that Board/GAC standoff. As with WT5, I think we need to find ways to bring the GAC into this now so we don’t have surprises like we did in 2012. Feedback on specific dates as they may cause scheduling/participation issues April 9 - major Holiday across Europe April 13 - major Holiday across Europe May 4 and 7 – GDD Summit May 21 another major Holiday across most of Europe May 26 – depending on time in UTC, may be a major holiday in US (May 25). June 29 and July 2 – immediately after ICANN68 which we historically avoid. Thanks for considering. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 6:23 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan Dear Jim, WG Members, Please find the latest version of the work plan here as a Google doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJVK7FoI$>) and attached as PDF. You can also find these resources on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJmNMnIO$> Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:19 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Julie. Any sense of when the draft work plan that was presented on the call yesterday will be distributed? On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJDLO-kDT$> * 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds (brief continued discussion – page 20) * 2.2.6 RSP Pre-Approval (page 20) 1. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJCB_qLuM$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJISYLvuy$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJIdpONVX$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thanks Heather, Donna and Jim. I think your points are very valid and well made. To that end: 1. For the F2F meetings in Cancun, as discussed during our last call, we believe that we will have some very productive meetings dealing with issues that we reasonably believe may be of interest/concern to GAC members (as well as the community). The leadership team is now going through past GAC Advice and their previous comments to the Working Group in order to determine some topics where we believe that our recommendations may be either inconsistent with, or slightly different, than their Advice or comments. * GAC Leadership has gone out of its way to ensure that there are no GAC sessions that conflict with our sessions so that they can encourage all interested GAC members to attend our meetings in Cancun. * We believe that this will not only help us all understand where there may be divergence and the reasons behind such divergence. It will also help us potentially engage in a meaningful dialogue with GAC members on why we have chosen to go in a certain direction and in the end hopefully reduce the likelihood of GAC Advice to the Board after our report is delivered. * A list of the topics will be circulated shortly and we are intending to provide briefing papers on these issues prior to everyone leaving for the ICANN meeting. 2. With respect to the extended sessions, we will be scheduling one topic to cover. If we get done in less time than 3 hours, then great, we will end early. To Donna’s point, we want to end those sessions where everything pertaining to that subject is “wrapped up.” I think we have been making really good progress lately on the topics that we have covered and I believe Working Group members have gone the extra mile to come to the meetings prepared to help us wrap up the topics. If we can keep that spirit of resolve, then I am confident we will make great progress in the weeks to come and finish ahead of our Project Change Request schedule. And as discussed during our last meeting: 1. We (Leadership and Policy Staff) will endeavor to have written materials for several meetings in advance to the group. We would ask that the group come prepared not only to discuss the one or two scheduled topics for the call, but also one or two topics ahead on the Work Plan in case we get done with the scheduled topics early. 2. So, for the next meeting as an example, we have Application Queueing and Closed Generics scheduled. For next Thursday, we have Closed Generics as the sole topic. If, however, we complete these topics at the next meeting and do not need all of Thursday to discuss Closed Generics, then we would ask that you be prepared to dive straight into Application Submission Limits and the Role of Application Comment. All of these sections will be sent to you shortly. Finally, we are documenting the next steps as discussed during the last meeting and will circulate that amongst the group shortly as well. Thank you for all of your comments and please let us know what else we can do to help us make this process more efficient and help us to make progress toward the last public comment period and final report. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:25 AM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan Colleagues, I would like to seize the opportunity to enthusiastically support Donna's support for Jim's idea of maximising PDP WG face to face time at ICANN public meetings. To support those not able to attend in person, and indeed frankly also those able to attend in person, it would be helpful if PDP leadership could circulate as detailed an agenda as possible at least one week prior to any ICANN meeting PDP WG scheduled sessions. This will allow those unable to attend and for whom the corresponding time zone in their home location might be terrible an opportunity to post comments in advance on the list, which could then be duly taken into account in the f2f discussions. Best wishes, Heather On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:17 AM Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote: I wholeheartedly support Jim’s suggestion as it relates to face-to-face time at ICANN meetings. We should be advocating to Council (or our Council Liaisons should be doing so on our behalf) that we find as much time as possible at ICANN meetings to knock out these topics, as Jim says. I agree that there is a point during calls where folks seem to lose interest and drop off, but I feel that in some cases our calls just fall short of allowing us to wrap up discussion to a useful conclusion. So perhaps we can find a balance and building on Jim’s suggestion perhaps we can start with a notice for a 2 hour call with the option available to continue for another hour if determined by the Chair and the group that it would be productive to do so. Donna Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin@team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin@team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:19 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan Jeff and Cheryl Thanks for the updated workplan and the chance to provide feedback. It presents a clear, organized way to look at the path ahead. A tad intimidating, but knowing where we are going and when we are going there is helpful. I applaud the shift from aspirational timelines to what I would say is a worst case scenario timeline. It will hopefully avoid having to go back to Council and ask for further extensions. I also agree with Jeff’s assessment on Thursday’s call that there are probably areas where we can make up time and accelerate what is in the workplan. As to your suggestion about the need for extended calls at some point in April and further down the line, I share the concerns of others with how effective those will be. As others pointed out on the call – doing a meeting for that length, in one stretch can be taxing. My experience is that this exacerbated in an online environment. I recall we had some 3 hour calls when we operating in WTs and the productivity dropped significantly after the 90-120 minute mark. We were left with the leaders of the call essentially speaking to themselves. Not a productive use of time. My concern only increases when these calls fall in the middle of the night, which theoretically will happen for everyone at some point. It is simply not realistic to expect participants to commit to 4 hour meetings after putting in a full day’s work elsewhere. We also have to consider the increased burden this puts on our ICANN support team. As I understand, several people are already playing double duty and I’m worried about the impact 4 hour calls will have on them. I’m sure there is a lot that goes into prepping and following up on a call so it’s more than just a 4 hour commitment to them. The policy support team goes to great lengths to support us and others and that “no” is not in their vocabulary so I’m hoping people consider this on their behalf. As an alternative I would suggest two possible paths – 1) take advantage of the ICANN meetings where a critical mass of WT participants will be in the same room to try and knock out these topics. 2) for some topics, extend some calls to two hours and see how that goes. Two weeks of 2 hour calls = 5 - 90 minute calls instead of 4. Feedback on the timeline itself For ICANN 67, which is only 4 weeks away – we have “topics of interest GAC; areas where recs potentially conflict with GAC advice.” – How will this work? I don’t see how the GAC can react to recommendations when it’s clear from the timeline that many of the issues the GAC will probably be interested in (community applications, applicant support, registrant protections and Auctions) are not set to be addressed until after Cancun. Does the GAC know they need to have this ready for Cancun? As hard as they try, speed is not their forte. Also for ICANN67 – “GAC Advice” I’m assuming that refers to 2012 round advice. Has leadership considered ways to try and get early warnings of new and future advice from the GAC so we can head that off and avoid the long protracted process we saw last round with the ICANN Board and GAC going back and forth? People chuckled when I suggested that Sub Pro request GAC advice be finalized before the application window but what that would do is create a much more predicable environment for applicants and avoid that Board/GAC standoff. As with WT5, I think we need to find ways to bring the GAC into this now so we don’t have surprises like we did in 2012. Feedback on specific dates as they may cause scheduling/participation issues April 9 - major Holiday across Europe April 13 - major Holiday across Europe May 4 and 7 – GDD Summit May 21 another major Holiday across most of Europe May 26 – depending on time in UTC, may be a major holiday in US (May 25). June 29 and July 2 – immediately after ICANN68 which we historically avoid. Thanks for considering. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 6:23 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan Dear Jim, WG Members, Please find the latest version of the work plan here as a Google doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJVK7FoI$>) and attached as PDF. You can also find these resources on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJmNMnIO$> Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:19 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Julie. Any sense of when the draft work plan that was presented on the call yesterday will be distributed? On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJDLO-kDT$> * 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds (brief continued discussion – page 20) * 2.2.6 RSP Pre-Approval (page 20) 1. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJCB_qLuM$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJISYLvuy$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJIdpONVX$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>