Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: Yesterday I presented a proposal<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pdf...> to this WG in my personal capacity that addressed the timing and number of examinations in those cases where a URS respondent 'defaulted.' Thanks again to the co-chairs for a well-designed process for submitting/weighing these proposals, and to staff for implementing the process so efficiently. Some asked during this presentation if I would be willing to tweak/adjust the proposal to better suit a request for public comment in light of the comments, both pro and con, being made as I spoke. My answer would be yes. However, prior to looking over the record and taking such steps I want to note to the WG that it seems advisable to wait until a similar proposal is aired, proposal #15<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.pd...> from Brain Winterfeldt et al. It appears to be first up in the next teleconference. By considering these together, the co-chairs may have a better insight into whether they should be considered separately or combined. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154