Good morning, here at least, You should have seen the message that Mary sent with tomorrow’s agenda and templates. This note is to provide information on the plan for the call and do an informal temporary template update. I reviewed the mp3s and transcripts from the last two weeks to catch up, and have been in touch with Graeme and Steve. It seems clear that the consensus on the calls was against differentiating among p/p registrants, aka a support for No. It seems logical as an extension that answers to adding markers in new Whois fields also is No. If no categorization is required up front at registration, how can we suggest that designations are necessary when information goes into the databases soon after? We will have time to revisit this discussion in different ways during our consideration of other questions and when converting the templates to a formal document. However, as this issue is central to p/p matters, we will spend more time on it tomorrow in order to give people who didn’t participate on calls recently a chance to make their cases. While “didn’t participate” doesn’t apply, I will note that FWD and LegitScript already have given us points for discussion in the message that Libby Baney sent earlier. Finally, as a result of a conversation at last week’s conference and a point that Mary made in a message to the Chairs this morning, I will remind all that we are looking at both privacy and proxy issues. So far we haven’t distinguished between them in our discussions. Should we for this matter? Talk to you tomorrow (for a change), Don