04:57:46 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	hello all
04:58:01 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Hello and welcome everyone.
05:03:11 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Hello and welcome everyone!
05:06:35 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Just set a time and get it in our calendars
05:06:49 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	+! (there are only 3 more)
05:06:51 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	there are only 2 more meeting..presumably doodle is fine
05:06:55 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	Agree to Cheryl
05:07:04 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	Also what CLO says is fine
05:07:10 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	As always
05:08:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	OK to Skip and go to may as well
05:08:57 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	w/c 25th fine foir me but following week is the INTA meeting and so more chaallenging
05:09:07 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	Ok to skip although being flexible
05:12:25 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	Can we give this group the more sparkly nickname "Studio 54"?
05:13:53 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	@Jothan, Suicide Squad
05:14:07 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	lol, perhaps
05:17:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	will the blue be done before the green?
05:17:14 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	or green before blue
05:17:26 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	we could mix them together and get yellow…
05:17:40 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	(ie has ICANN org taken a preliminary sweep at this)
05:18:21 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	To note Org has provided a suggested level of prioritization as a starting point.
05:18:36 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	excellent thank you Becky
05:19:04 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	can that URL on the slide 11 be shared in the chat?
05:19:27 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	Themes or topics or subject matter.
05:19:37 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Link:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
05:19:45 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	Merci
05:20:25 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Org will display the worksheet but should you wish to review the file https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
05:22:26 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	At the end, you can prioritize then anyway you want, and with no particular approach. Meaning you can take an approach, and then move recs around based on any specific rationale. For example, you could say (i) start with org's suggested starting point, then rearrange so that all recs that create a dependency for the Next round are prioritized up… Just an illustration for making a point.
05:23:03 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	Thanks Becky and Xavier
05:24:15 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	the ways to sort this list is just ways for us to "group" the discussions, eventually we will have to look at each row.
05:25:35 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	I’m confused…I thought we were suppose to NOT be representing our stakeholder groups but rather operting for the benefit of ICANN as a whole…
05:26:31 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Chris, yes you are right. All members are acting on their individual capacity.
05:26:37 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	@hris: that's what I try to do
05:26:37 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	All, here is the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
05:26:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Tru CHris BUT as our Community has fully appraised the topic of Prioritization  we are fully intending to bring that very personally agreed to influence in here
05:27:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	many of you probably don't realise our community work on this started with weekly meetings back in Dec 2000
05:28:21 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	in 2000? or 2020?
05:28:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	2020 missed the 2 ;-)
05:28:54 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	The prioritization from each team review has the limited value here of having been done (i) at the time of the review and (ii) having been done in isolation for 1 review. (No prioritization across all reviews).
05:29:27 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Yes, Susan, I had the same thought.
05:29:35 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Victoria Yang - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Rafik asked to enable the subtitles
05:29:40 From Ken Renard to Everyone:
	+1
05:30:14 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Agreed @Xavier and each RT if it did prioritize  did so in isolation to the rest and with probable bias
05:30:15 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	I agree with Susan - I think on Row 5, "pause" RDS = low LoE for org
05:30:15 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Victoria Yang - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	i hope it's OK - i enabled it
05:30:25 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	yes, thank you for doing that
05:31:09 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	this one seems like it is a double negative
05:31:22 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@Susan: is your question driven by wanting to understand better the recommendation, or to understand implementation workload to help prioritizing?
05:31:53 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	And some are already in process
05:32:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Indeed @JZ
05:32:12 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	P1 means halt until sept, what does p4 mean...?  Don't defer?
05:32:33 From Avri Doria to Everyone:
	Does this activity, e.g.,  include the recasting of the bylaw related to these reviews. That would be more than a simple Board motion.
05:32:37 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	@Xavier, something of the latter.  Not for every recommendation but it seems to me that if we see a recommendation that clearly is a de minimis workload then it feels like that's a factor in prioritising
05:32:47 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	But I hear you all saying that's not the case
05:33:12 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	and to reiterate, I think this is P1 as staff have suggested
05:33:49 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	Not disagreeing with p1 - but what would be the effect of making it P4?
05:33:59 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	It’s the old urgency/importance 4 quadrant diagram
05:34:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	(largely asking as this is our first)
05:34:04 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	To answer Susan's question: for this particular Rec, the ask is to get board resolution for postponing the next RDS review. Similar to what the Board did in ICANN73, to postpone SSR3. Because, based on the current bylaws, the next RDS review (RDS3) should be in Sep 2023, which is in FY24, as we are going into planning for Fy24 now, it’s good if board make a decision, so we know we don't have to plan for this review in FY24.
05:34:17 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	If we're polling  I am P1 on this as well
05:34:37 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Thank you, Xavier. That makes sense.
05:35:03 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	sure, but we're saying p1 = 'suspend' on this... I guess I am curious if this is something that does not get suspended if we change from p1.
05:35:23 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	There are some recs which are more time sensitive, even though they might not be the most “important”
05:35:24 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	@Jothan - ha, none in this case I would have thought
05:35:40 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	it seems to me that the first 5 (ATRT3) are no brainers as P1. They are overarching recs that effect many other things and fit under ‘precedent for other recs’ and ‘strategic’.
05:35:56 From Ken Renard to Everyone:
	Is the result of this recommendation the 'release' of existing resources currently working on these reviews ?  That would have importance.
05:35:58 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	On that @Chris we  *can* agree
05:36:41 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	How many P1s are workable?
05:37:10 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	Do we have a means to 'put a pin in it' on these or flag those we'd like to come back to?
05:37:25 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	@Wolf-Ulrich - that is not something we need to consider at this stage if I undertsand Xavier correctly
05:37:41 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Ken, these are rec not being worked on yet, thus, it won't be a "release" of existing resources
05:38:06 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	From a timing perspective, it does seem that there is an urgency in setting the processes in place, but to Susan's point about what's involved it should be reasonably straight forward to do so given the Board has approved the recommendation.
05:38:20 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	Yes Chris - but sometimes it's helpful to look towards the end. Maybe a bit later
05:38:24 From Ken Renard to Everyone:
	Since this rec 'suspends' reviews, are there currently resources being spent on reviews?
05:38:35 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	unless we are only allowed so many P1, it makes sense.  If there is a limit on P1, then this could be any Pri because it really directs deferral with low LoE
05:39:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	(row 5)
05:39:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Again P1
05:39:49 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	There is no limit Jothan. But after we have the list, we will want to see how many P1s are there and how many we can take on.
05:40:02 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	the ones on the screen
05:40:40 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	so if there are too many P1 row 5 has some wiggle room
05:40:52 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	thanks…I thought we’d moved on from the ATRT ones..
05:40:58 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	My apologies
05:41:02 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	unless the objective is the optics of many P1
05:42:05 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@jothan: to push the point to the extreme, if you end up by classifying all recs P1, then you have not prioritized at all. Worse, you have established a reference point of no ability to prioritize…!
05:42:16 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Indeed
05:42:34 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	yes true - that one seemed like a 'freebie'
05:42:34 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	Fair point Susan on the framework of data.
05:43:08 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Agreed Susan
05:43:08 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	I agree with Donna that the urgency is not “now”.
05:43:39 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	on 3.2
05:44:23 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	CCT data is required early so that a comparison can be made to post-round data.
05:44:49 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	+1 jonathan
05:46:53 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	By the way, to the point of developing a plan later: if you would say 3.1 to 3.5 are P1, except 3.3 that is P4, it may be that Org, when developing a plan, says: we have put all 3.1 to 3.5 in the FY23 plan because it was easier from a workload management standpoint to aggregate all of them together.
05:47:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Correct @Chris  I agree again
05:48:41 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Agree  P1
05:49:12 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	exactly Xavier
05:49:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	+++
05:50:20 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	so row 6/7 are 'bundled', basically... makes sense
05:50:28 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Yup
05:51:08 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	@Xavier, are there other similar cases? Then we can save time discussing it
05:51:16 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	5/6/7 together
05:51:29 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	+1
05:51:37 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Not sure yet if that is the case Wolf Ulrich.
05:52:21 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	just depends again upon how many P1 items you want to show up on graphs on bundling
05:52:28 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	We have not tried to do that type of prelim work, though agree it is useful. We did not want to go too far in simulating the piroritization so that we don't preempt your discussions in this group.
05:52:42 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	but the group may decide to do more of that
05:52:58 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	no I diagree about urgency
05:53:02 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	YES
05:53:04 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	line 8 is of highest importance
05:53:20 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	not urgent
05:53:22 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	run 1 - prioritse - run 2 look at P1s and assess if prioritsation within P1s is then necessary…
05:53:35 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	#wisdom
05:53:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	ToR is being done
05:53:51 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	yep
05:53:53 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Does anyone disagree it is important/urgent?
05:54:05 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	it is important
05:54:25 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	@xavier I can understand it is important but I disagree with urgency
05:55:20 From Avri Doria to Everyone:
	Writing the Tor for the pilot does not initiate the pilot. If the Holistic review is not started, the Tor can sit on the shelf and wait.
05:56:06 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	I must have misunderstood what the intent of the pilot.
05:57:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	I agree @Wolf  P1 still IMO
05:57:41 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@Donna: as Avri indicated above, it is the ToR for a pilot that has started. Once these ToR are done, they can be used as soon as or as late as the pilot is being conducted, ie in 3 months or in 3 years…
06:00:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Indeed @Chris  there is some interdependency here IMO
06:00:11 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	Got it Cheryl, I guess I had decided that if the TOR were being developed the pilot would be imminent.
06:00:43 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	CLO may clarify, but I don’t think the holistic review replaces the current system of reviews but actually adds a review. ATRT3 said “the first one should be done before any other review is carried out”.
06:00:58 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Tobe clear @Donna IMO it *should be imminent
06:01:16 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	@ Xavier - but a vaccum would be created - right?
06:02:04 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@Chris, if by “vaccum” you mean a lapse of any other review while Holistic Review is conducted, then yes.
06:02:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Yes @Xavier it aso links strongly with getting into more Continuous Improvement planning over the sticatto reviews system
06:02:15 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	@Chris, hard to see it as a “vacuum” with so much unimplemented. One could even consider the work of THIS team as the temporary replacement.
06:02:17 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	Not really Chris. The implementation of the recommendations from the recently or not so recently concluded Reviews will fill the vacuum.
06:02:55 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	By vacuum I do mean a lapse of reviews…
06:03:01 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	On balance I prefer it to remain a P1
06:03:23 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	We are engaged in a sort of review now
06:03:49 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	I apologies for introducing confusing nomenclature :-)
06:03:56 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	I don't see it as a lapse in reviews, but rather a more sensible and achievable timing of reviews.
06:07:31 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	so, looks like majority of the members do agree with this Rec should stay as P1?
06:08:37 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	We are just trying to arrive at if this is P1 or P2 at the moment, correct?
06:09:09 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Yes Jothan, or any other priority level.
06:09:53 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	It seemed as though there was alignment on important, but divergence on urgent
06:11:50 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	SO if anyone has a formal objection we make it clear as we go through
06:12:18 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	CLO + 1
06:14:32 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	I’m unclear why that is a reason to say it is not urgent
06:15:04 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	If the coin needs to land on a side on this I suggest P2
06:15:25 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	Just an observation: the first batch of recs that we work through will be setting the bar for the discussion of remaining recs. Will there be an opportunity to recalibrate those early discussions.
06:15:32 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Time check- we have 15 minutes
06:15:54 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	can we leave the urgency blank on this to come back to without assigning P1 or P2 and relitigate this next week?
06:15:55 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Agree Donna it sets a bar, and yes, there should be an opportunity to recalibrate I think.
06:16:10 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Hi Please put in the group chat.
06:16:44 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	I was going to say earlier that, you will find in P2, P3 and P4 that there may be recs that you think are more important/urgent than these ones…!
06:17:13 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	run 1 - prioritse - run 2 look at P1s and assess if prioritsation within P1s is then necessary…
06:17:41 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Yep, multiple passes
06:17:48 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	wise, maybe even look at 'bundles' @chris
06:17:53 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Susan, great point, so we have meeting #5, depends on the final list, we can definitely look at it again holistically
06:17:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	I support the second run approach especially if some of us have not done a prioritization of the whole list ourselves as well
06:18:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	I am concerned we will need an additional 5 meetings
06:18:06 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	at our current stride
06:18:12 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Hopefully adjustments of “urgency” will lead to sub piroritization
06:18:52 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Agreed @JZ  sub sets or order in a P1.P2.P3  is also likely
06:19:31 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Ranking things as “less important” will be a much more difficult task than adjusting urgency
06:19:48 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	And to clarify, meeting #5 is intent for lessons learns and wrap up.
06:19:55 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	All we have 10 min.  remaining for today. We have Meeting #3 and #4 for finishing the Prioritization.
06:20:43 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	could we, perhaps, work off line to bring to the top any recs that we each disagree with the staff assessmewnt?
06:21:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	also, as Chris wisely noted when we looked at 5-7 as a "bundle"  perhaps there are other "bundles"?
06:22:08 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Absolutely possible approach Chris. And Jothan.
06:22:08 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	@Mary, I think we'll speed up as we've got to grips with the process
06:22:30 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Agree Susan.
06:22:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Yes I think we will speed up and indeed quite possibly bundle
06:22:58 From Donna Austin (RySG CPH Rep) to Everyone:
	I agree Susan
06:23:18 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	great group of people to pilot/navigate a new process with
06:23:29 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
	and apologies, I was really responding to becky :)
06:24:08 From Mary Wong - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	No worries, Susan 🙂
06:25:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	You may need to poll the members of course on some of these
06:26:49 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	I was going to suggest the same - if we are doing a 'pilot' could we suggest process tweaks ?   the polling might be a great way to rapidly expose areas of alignment between this group and those of Org so we can move more rapidly to focus on where we are not or where minority voices can be called upon to share the dissenting pri?
06:27:34 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	Jothan…our last meeting will be about tweaks etc if I understand correctly
06:27:52 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	my understanding also
06:28:17 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	ok.. does that need to defer the polling suggestion
06:28:21 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	it would enable us to pass by the agreed ones assumng there are any :-)
06:28:35 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Yes Chris for this Pilot the last meeting is for discussion on the Framework.
06:28:38 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	seems like a way to capture individual dissent rapidly to expose the dialog
06:29:03 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	@chris what is agreement , define :D?
06:29:56 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Agree Jothan
06:30:05 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	That was the point of offering a starting point.
06:30:05 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	@ Rafik...any rec that any one person or more  disgarees with would be subject for discussion
06:30:17 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	might be a tactical way to capture the strategic idea Chris posed
06:30:36 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Bye for now then...
06:30:38 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Very good discussion. You guys are good!
06:30:40 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	@rafik: if nobody disagrees formally, isn't it?
06:30:41 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Thank you.
06:30:45 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG, CPH Alt) to Everyone:
	cheers all!  thanks
06:30:47 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	Thanks
06:30:48 From Avri Doria to Everyone:
	Bye
06:30:49 From DANKO Jevtović to Everyone:
	Thanks!
06:30:50 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	thanks all