Bruce, Many thanks for this update and constructive, forward looking thoughts. Please note my previous email to the Council laying out some thoughts for our interaction with the board in Durban, I suspect we can marry the thinking and approaches in my note to the Council with what you have laid out below. If we can continue with this type of approach, I am optimistic about our ability to effectively work within the existing model as well as to develop and modify it where necessary. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 19 June 2013 01:36 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Hello All, Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council regarding Reconsideration Request 13-3. Just an update. The Board Governance Committee had an extensive discussion around this topic in its meeting today. Staff will be reviewing the text of the rationale following the discussion. The current plan is for the Board Governance Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale. In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we have the discussion around GNSO advice, and involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of policies, outside of the context of the wording of the rationale. I.e. I think we should discuss this at a broader level - ie what are the lessons learned from this case - rather than debate the case itself. The Board Governance Committee is also having discussions about the broader topic and would welcome further discussions in Durban. It is also a useful topic for the Board as a whole, and certainly has been a topic of the past two public ICANN meetings. As I see it, we have a detailed process in the bylaws that sets out how the GNSO develops policy recommendations, and how the Board approves those recommendations to form ICANN policy. The GNSO is free to create policy recommendations using the PDP on any of the new gTLD topics - including the trademark clearinghouse. These policy recommendations may change current policies, or current implementations of policies (e.g. . various implementation details of the transfers policy). As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws are less clear on how the Board and staff should treat advice from the GNSO Council on implementations of ICANN policies etc. Presently this is primarily treated via the various public comment forums but there is no special standing for the GNSO in those forums, and through the various meetings between the Board and the GNSO Council at its public meetings. There is no defined process at this point however. In contrast the bylaws do set out formal processes for responding to GAC advice which frequently focus on implementation of policies. I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council meetings - both parties mostly hear the views of individual members. There is not usually a discussion on a formal piece of GNSO Advice. One thing the GAC tends to do, after meetings between the Board and the GAC, is formulate its views as the formal GAC Communique that is assumed to represent a consensus of the GAC on a particular topic that was discussed. The Board then has an option to subsequently meet with the GAC to specifically go through the GAC Communiqué. I believe this will happen in Durban with respect to some points from their Beijing Communiqué. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, Board Governance Committee