Dear Councilors, During the SPS, the Council discussed next steps for the SSAD recommendations. The Council agreed to the RDRS Standing Committee’s recommendation, which is to recommend that the Board non-adopt the 18 SSAD recommendations as a package in order to start the Supplemental Recommendations process, described in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#annexA>. During this discussion, a question was asked: is the Board required to non-adopt recommendations for the Council to issue supplemental recommendations? The short answer is yes. In Annex A, Section 9 of the Bylaws, there is a series of four steps that have been interpreted to be sequential steps in a process, culminating in step 9(d), where the Council has the option to develop Supplemental Recommendations. In other words, the Council cannot immediately skip to step 9(d) without the preceding three steps having been properly accounted for. In Annex A, Section 9(a), the Bylaws state that the PDP Recommendations shall be adopted unless, “the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.” Some have noted the absence of explicit mention of words like “non-adopt”, “not adopt”, or “reject” in that section; however, Section 9(b) provides, “In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.” (emphasis added). If the Board determines that GNSO policy recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, it cannot adopt the recommendations. Accordingly, non-adoption (or “not adopt” or “rejection”), while not explicitly noted, is implied. This has been ICANN org’s interpretation of the Bylaws in similar situations such as the non-adoption of the certain SubPro recommendations. In the SubPro example, the Board’s statement included its reasons for not adopting the recommendations, which triggered the Supplemental Recommendation process. The process described in Annex A, Section 9 should not be confused with Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...>, where the Council does have the opportunity to proactively modify pending recommendations that have not yet been approved by the Board; doing so does not require Board intervention. The RDRS Standing Committee did discuss this alternative and found it to have procedural challenges, in particular the requirement to reconstitute an EPDP Team that has long since been dissolved. Instead, the RDRS determined that the Supplemental Recommendations process for SubPro was efficient, allowed for community consultation, and led to effective outcomes. Accordingly, the Bylaws path was preferred over reconstituting the EPDP Team. We hope this information is helpful. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410