With one exception, the public session went reasonably well. We had a good number of people in the room. At the start of the session, slide 7 which had the coloured list of objectives displayed blank. I started reading what should have been displayed from a copy with really small sized font, and Susan turned around her laptop to show the audience what they should have been seeing. After a good number of minutes, the graphic finally loaded. The "exception" was that Stephanie was sitting at the far end of the table of speakers and I had not seen her come in, and could not see her at the table. So I presumed that she had been delayed and did not introduce her to talk about her section. No one else interrupted me, so I ended up briefly presenting Anything New. I only was told that she was there a day later. I offer my sincere apologies to Stephanie for this mistake, and take full responsibility for it. Not surprisingly, due to the amount of material on our slides, we ran over our allotted time for the presentation, but still had sufficient time for all questions. The highlight was Michele Neylon noticing Compliance recommendation 4.7 which reads:
Draft Recommendation (R4.7): Following a valid WHOIS ARS ticket, or WHOIS inaccuracy complaint, initiate a full audit targeting the relating registrar to check if the registrar follows the contractual obligations, the consensus policies, etc. Sanctions should be applied if deficiencies identified.
He was pointing out that triggering a full audit based on ONE accuracy complaint might not be the wisest thing to recommend. I recommend everyone listening to his rant. It was marvellous and on the face of it he may well have a point. See https://audio.icann.org/meetings/pty62/pty62-OPEN-2018-06-28-T2149-salon1-en..., from 1:18:27 to 1:23:24. Alan