<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-TW;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-TW;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Jaco, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I don’t see why you cannot find valid objections and hence think this proposal should be in the last call. I agree with Gaby. The fact that many of us are still discussing the matter and object the proposal
in all different reasons, is the prove of there is no reaching rough consensus. And so we should not rush it into last call just because some think it’s doing good or all problems have been taken care of.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Like for objection d; no proper definition of the term Abuse, there is still a need to address on it. Yes the proposal is about “building” abuse contact, but just like what Jordi has said, “ The policy only
needs to state what the staff should evaluate and thus, what members should do”, if the definition of the word/ act of Abuse is not clear, how can the staff evaluate such action then? Let's say if they interpret those cases in their own different ways, it
will not be fair to any of the parties nor would it be something we want I suppose. And there are high chance of having mis-interpretation too!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chloe <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>