Greetings IRT colleagues, Thanks again for your questions and comments on the latest ASP Terms and Conditions during meeting #85<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=370442253>. We've taken those back and have created a final clean version as well as a redline to show changes since your last review. With regards to the first question about maintaining eligibility, we confirmed during the meeting that we refer to ASP Handbook Section 6.6 which provides the eligibility criteria. There was a question as to whether the same eligibility criteria would be applicable to applicants that become Registry Operators (RO) and whether Domains Under Management (DUMs) would be a better indicator. Since DUMs can vary widely based upon the business model of the RO, ICANN proposed a graduated scale for reduced base Registry Agreements. Please see the slide deck from ASP-IRT subtrack meeting #25. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=369852474&preview=/...> (slide 16). So, ASP Handbook Section 6.6 criteria would remain applicable when the supported applicant becomes an RO. We have updated the language about affiliation in Section 4 to clarify and confirm that this is referring to the definition of "affiliate" in Section 4.2 of the ASP Handbook. On the question in Section 5 about ICANN affiliates, we have updated the sentence slightly to reduce confusion, The current use of “ICANN Affiliated Parties” is a defined term for all of the parties included in the indemnified party list. So, it is not circular and hopefully this is more clear with these minor edits. I understand that an example of ICANN affiliates is the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), but that there is not a general definition of the ICANN affiliates term. We appreciate the IRT's careful review and thoughtful feedback on the ASP Terms & Conditions. Please let us know if you have any further questions. We hope to see many of you at ICANN81--virtually or in person. Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team