Hi all, As mentioned in my update email yesterday, from the list of multiple options presented during our November Council meeting, the Leadership Team, working with staff, has narrowed the list to a single recommendation and welcomes further Council discussion during both our December and January meetings. The recommendation for Council consideration and, importantly, for input from the SGs and Cs, is outlined below, with some additional notes for context. Again, this is not subject to a decision at our 20 December meeting, but is an opportunity for further discussion and deliberation. I recommend that we set a February or March deadline for making a final decision and voting. We propose: 1. The GNSO Council sends a letter to the GAC acknowledging the GAC's letter from Barcelona and welcomes further dialogue and any additional information relevant to our deliberations. 2. The GNSO Council sends a letter to the WG informing the WG of the Council's proposed approach to the 5 recommendations in the Final Report. 3. In February/March 2019, the GNSO Council approves Recommendations 1-4 and forwards them to the Board. These recommendations received consensus support of the PDP WG and, while they conflict with GAC Advice, they do not set new or change existing GNSO consensus policy or make changes to the URS or UDRP. 4. Concurrently, the GNSO Council accepts (not approves) Recommendation #5 and refers it to the RPM PDP WG for further consideration as part of its Phase 2 work on UDRP (scheduled to begin Q4 2019 or Q1 2020). NOTES: As we've discussed, if approved and implemented, Recommendation #5 would make changes to the UDRP in one specific respect while another ongoing PDP WG is chartered by the GNSO to address UDRP holistically. As such, we believe they should be considered together. This would give the GAC and the impacted parties (IGOs) another opportunity to participate in the policy development work and would prevent a situation where the ICANN Board might reject Recommendation #5 or initiate a GAC-GNSO consultation process on Recommendation #5. Such a step would essentially take the decision-making out of the GNSO and would likely put us back at square one. In our previous discussions, we had resisted the splitting of recommendations based on process concerns, because, if we had a process issue with one recommendation, or a sub-set of recommendations, that process issue likely would have existed for the entire final report. However, we are not making this recommendation/decision based on a process concern; we are making the distinction between Recommendations 1-4 and 5 on the basis that 1-4 deal primarily with the specific issue of access to UDRP/URS for IGOs and/or they do not impact the future work of the RPM PDP WG, while 5 deals with the issue of jurisdictional immunity and changes to UDRP that substantively may result in IGOs receiving less protection than the current situation. Furthermore, because there is an overlap between two PDPs focused on UDRP, making the Recommendation 5 changes now, before the RPM PDP concludes its work, is premature. The issues should be considered together in a holistic manner. Thanks, and I look forward to continued discussion on this important topic. Regards, Keith