Dear Sub Group B members, Per the following action item re: URS Question #1 captured from today’s RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B meeting that the Co-Chairs and staff will formulate two options for the Sub Group to consider and take them to the list, please see the following options below and indicate your preference. If you have another option to suggest please provide the text of the option. Please provide your response by COB Monday, 01 June. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie With respect to URS Questions 1a and 1b (see below) please indicate your preference for how the Sub Group should proceed in its summary to the full WG: Option 1: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b and the recommendation of the Sub Group is that the full WG should revisit these questions and the responses to them. Option 2: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b, but in the absence of any high-level of agreement the WG does not need to take further action with respect to URS Question 1. URS Question #1: 1a. Should URS Rule 15(a) be amended to clarify that, where a Complaint has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, there must be an option for the Determination to be published without the updated registration data? 1b. If so, when, by whom, and how should this option be triggered? 1c. Are there any operational considerations that will need to also be addressed in triggering this option?