All, Regarding the GNSO Council Action Items, at our last meeting, we agreed to confirm the requirement with respect to the following: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). Jeff Neumann to draft 2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. A volunteer to draft. a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency. b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT. 3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board. Jonathan to draft. a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice. c. To propose solutions such as: - Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions) - Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws Having seen the outcome of the latest reconsideration request i.e. as follows: Based on the foregoing, the BGC concludes that Booking.com has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Booking.com's request be denied without further consideration. This Request challenges a substantive decision taken by a panel in the New gTLD Program and not the process by which that decision was taken. As stated in our Recommendation on Request 13-2, Reconsideration is not a mechanism for direct, de novo appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees, and seeking such relief is, in fact, in contravention of the established processes within ICANN. It strikes me that point 2 above, assisted by the latest reconsideration decision, remains valid. Looking at points 1 & 3 above, it strikes me that 1 is no longer required and has been dealt with by other communications and actions but 3 may still be valid. Therefore, please can you assist me by confirming (or denying) that going forwards, we should complete the action by: 1. Dropping Action 1 above 2. Completing Action 2 above (If so, a volunteer to draft please?) 3. Completing 3 above. Thank-you. Jonathan