Dear WG chairs and Sub Team 4 members,

As requested by the Sub Team 4 members who were able to participate in the Friday call, I’ve updated the Sub Team 4 report to reflect that discussion. Please note that this document has not yet been reviewed by any Sub Team 4 member, and represents staff’s attempt to capture the gist of the Friday discussion. I have accepted all the changes from Categories A through E that were in the last version circulated by Kathy (version 3), so this document (version 4) shows the changes I’ve made in those five categories, while retaining all the previous changes and comments that are in Category F and Category G, which the Sub Team did not get through on Friday.

Also attached is a summary document that contains only the recommendations and conclusions from the draft Sub Team report (as updated). I am including this as I thought it may make it easier for Don, Steve and Graeme to review, to see where things are.

Don, Steve and Graeme – please note that several items have been flagged for further WG discussion, and have been marked as such in both documents. While each recommendation should certainly be reviewed by all WG members, these flagged items represent either topics where the Sub Team has not yet come to agreement or otherwise believes the topic should be brought back to the full WG. Of these topics, I believe that on the Friday call the group highlighted the question as to whether accreditation could lead to the loss of the right to counsel (Category D-2) as being the one item likely to be most usefully discussed at the Friday face to face meeting. Another topic that could be raised at the Friday meeting is the question of penalties for repetitive abuses of the program (Category C-2).

Kathy, Paul, Vicky and all – can you confirm or otherwise highlight, the topics that you think would benefit particularly from a WG discussion on Friday?