Dear Councilors, Attached please find an amendment to the Motion of the Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report. As the motion proposer and noting that there is no seconder as yet for the motion, I deem those amendments to be friendly. I attach a version with and a version without track changes. Respectfully submitted, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion@petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law [cid:image001.png@01D70166.0AE4AE90]<https://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion@petillion.law> Date: Friday, 5 February 2021 at 22:00 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Motion SubPro WG Final Report Dear Councilors, Attached please find a Motion to Adoption of the Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report. The motion is structured in such a way that the Council will be voting on the Final Report as one package. That said, because two of the hundreds of Outputs had strong support but significant opposition, we have bifurcated the resolved clauses to (a) recommend the implementation of those Outputs that had either consensus or full consensus designations and (b) consider the Outputs that have strong support but significant opposition as well as the associated rationale in the report and the minority statements. We believe that providing the entire report to the Board for its consideration is important for the Board to understand how we arrived at where we are and to give those very few areas without consensus some context. We are not stating that the Board MUST implement those elements that did not have consensus, but we are giving them full information so that either they can make a decision on how to proceed on those, or ask for future work. Although there are these couple Outputs that did not attain at least Consensus, and one Output (Closed Generics) where there is consensus that there is no agreement, we do not believe that a Council substantive discussion on these issues or remanding it back to the Working Group, would result in a different result. There are good arguments on all sides of these issues and the Working Group spent a number of years trying to come up with compromise proposals without success. These are areas where we believe that guidance from the Board will be necessary to make further progress on these issues. Should you have questions, I am at your disposal for a call to discuss these. I would appreciate it should you share your questions in the list beforehand. Respectfully submitted, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion@petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law [id:image001.png@01D3691D.DA7539C0]<https://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats
