Hello Jonathan, The rationale from the Board resolution gives a little more context: Rationale for Resolutions 2014.02.07.05 – 2014.07.06 Why is the Board addressing this issue now? In response to the GAC advice on protecting the identifiers of the RCRC, IOC and IGOs in the New gTLD Program, the Board tasked the GNSO with developing policy in response to the GAC advice. In its deliberations, the GNSO Council determined that a Policy Development Process (PDP) was required to resolve the issue as to special protections of strings at the top and second levels for international organizations. In October 2012, the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on this issue. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 14 June 2013, followed by its Final Report on 10 November 2013. The Final Report included over twenty consensus recommendations from the WG and Minority Statements from the RCRC, IGO and INGO representatives who participated in the WG, the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee. All the WG's consensus recommendations were approved unanimously by the GNSO Council. Following the closing of the public comment period on these recommendations and adoption by the GNSO Council of a Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board, the next step as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws is consideration by the ICANN Board of the GNSO recommendations. The Bylaws require the Board to "meet to discuss" the GNSO policy recommendations "as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff Manager. In addition, Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013, its Durban Communiqué dated 18 July 2013, and its Buenos Aires Communiqué dated 20 November 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. What is the proposal being considered? Before considering the resolving the substantive issues concerning the GNSO policy recommendations, the Board is considering how it would like to proceed on this topic as a procedural matter. The GNSO unanimously adopted the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP. The policy recommendations are being transmitted to the Board for review and consideration pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC has also issued advice to the Board on protections for IGOs in the context of the New gTLD Program - most recently in its Buenos Aires Communiqué. Because the advice relates to the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) is considering the GAC advice. The NGPC has not yet finalized is proposal to address the GAC's advice relating to protections for IGOs but is actively working on the issue. In general, the GNSO recommendations are largely consistent with the advice submitted by the GAC to the ICANN Board. However, there are specific GNSO policy recommendations that differ from the GAC's advice. At this time, the Board is considering acknowledging the policy recommendations of the GNSO in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP, but requesting additional time to consider the recommendations given that the NGPC is actively working on addressing the GAC's advice on the same topic. The Board is considering taking a holistic approach to considering the GNSO policy recommendations and the GAC's advice by directing the NGPC to (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs, and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin