Dear Review Team, sorry I wasn't able to attend the plenary call last Friday. I have been thinking a bit about the agenda and was wondering whether it made sense to allocate the same time to all the subgroups for presentation, in particular those that cover recommendations from the first review team which are more straightforward than others and therefore should be easier to verify. I hear this idea was also discussed on the call. So I've done a slight edit of the draft agenda, cutting the slots for some points to a half hour. Please find attached clean and TC versions for your review. As of now, I've proposed giving the time saved to the "update on ongoing community initiatives" which I assume also includes a possibility for us to talk about the current interim model work. It could also be allocated to the more complicated subgroup matters. I like the logic of finishing the review of Whois1 recommendations first and then turning to new assessments. So I was also wondering whether the community initiatives update should be moved after we finish our discussion on Whois1 rec implementation. I would thus invite you to reflect on the following questions: 1. Do you agree with this reallocation? Should it be further adjusted, for example more time given to more complex topics/even less time to the "easy" ones? 2. Would the update on ongoing community activities be better placed after the review on the implementation of the recommendations from the first review team? 3. Any other adjustments we should make to this agenda? Grateful for any comments on this. Best regards Cathrin