Thanks Anne, that is not really what I suggested. At this stage, the ask was for all Councillors to:
- consider the recommendations from the RDRS SC, and particularly the recommendation to ask the Board to non-adopt all of the
EPDP Phase 2 SSAD Recommendations in order to trigger the Supplemental Recommendation process
- take instructions from their SG/Cs where appropriate
- determine whether or not you support, and share views.
That way we can determine whether we need to put together a small team for more in depth discussion on what is the right path, or whether we spent time focussing on talking points
for discussion with the board.
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Sent: 05 January 2026 16:43
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Cc: Council@icann.org; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; GNSO Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Council to ask the Board to Non-Adopt all SSAD Recommendations?
Hi Susan,
If I understand your email to Council correctly, you are suggesting that Council write to the Board based on the RDRS Standing Commitee Report and advise the Board to non-adopt all SSAD Recommendations. Is that right? If so, my questions
about that are:
1. Wouldn't that require a Motion at the Council level rather than just an assumption that if Council accepts the RDRS report (as it did in December) then it will take action based on the report as if it were policy?
2. I'm not familiar with all the SSAD Recommendations. Is a wholesale rejection of all of these policy Recommendations advisable? Should any be examined individually or do we think the RDRS Standing Committee already did that individual
analysis? (Seb is copied.)
3. I understand that the idea would be for GNSO Council to commence the Supplemental Recommendation Process under the ByLaws which would include the learnings from the RDRS Standing Committee as well as the Public Comments report on RDRS.
Is there a question whether or not this requires a small team at Council? That seems likely and it would appear that Seb's involvement would be helpful here.
It strikes me that the above questions may be appropriate as a discussion item at the January Council meeting or at SPS but I'm open to your recommended approach.
Thank you,
Anne