Lars and Elisa et As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list. Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period. Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions: 1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT? 2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan. I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.) Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com