All,

I’ve read through the attached with interest: first and most obvious comment – many thanks to Mary & Steve for their work, as ever!

I haven’t yet had chance to run thus via the BC; will do, but am conscious of time so some quick initial thoughts before Thursday’s meeting:

· Very happy with the limited & expert membership criteria, given the subject matter.

· Don’t know if we need 22 members though? I absolutely DO NOT want to come across as limiting / unbalancing anything, I’m just conscious that from various discussions I have the impression this is more of a concern to the NCPH than the CPH. So maybe 3 NCSG, 3 CSG, 3 CPH? + 2 IGOs + 2 SOAC (out of interest – who except the GAC?) + Chair = 14 (+ Julf)? If I’m wrong here re the CPH, I apologise unreservedly and shall circumnavigate any building of Keith & Pam’s choosing in full sackcloth & ashes.

· Timing: think it would help to clarify whether work is supposed to start now (implied in section 4), or only once Phase II starts (implied in section 3). May be a good idea to check with the RPM co-chairs & Paul as to reality on bandwidth/interaction with the whole WG.

· Objectives/Scope/Problem Statement: given the history (and complexity) I think it would helpful to have a more detailed baseline that firms up the concerns expressed by WG and also by the INGOs, the GAC and the so-called Small Group, with the background documents (legal advice, GAC communiqués etc.) listed/available so that we’re not coming at this from 14 (or 22) different starting points.

Hope this helps; as said, personal views only so please feel free to shoot the messenger.

Best

Marie

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:01 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Working Draft of RPM Charter Amendments

Dear Councilors,

Please find attached for your review a Working Draft of proposed amendments to the RPM PDP Charter. The document is an initial attempt to address the incorporation, into the RPM PDP, of the IGO curative rights topic that the Council resolved last month to refer to the RPM PDP Working Group.

Please note the following important points as you review the attached draft:

• This is a Working Draft for which your input and comments are being sought by the Council leadership, who as a result have not edited the initial text prepared by staff.
• The Council is not expected to make a decision at this stage – instead, this draft was prepared to foster discussion, including on the next GNSO Council call where the topic is expected to be on the agenda as a discussion item.
• You will see that the draft is being presented as an Addendum that can be incorporated (if and when the Council votes to approve it) into the existing RPM Charter. For context, staff is suggesting this approach as we think it represents a clearer and “cleaner” way to define the scope of the issue at hand as well as allow for a more flexible methodology/mechanism for addressing it.
• We envisage that the formal “incorporation by reference” can be achieved by the appropriate formulation of the actual motion as well as an additional provision inserted into the existing Charter that clearly refers to the Addendum and its purpose.
• The suggested approach (including team composition and leadership requirements) is based substantially on the Council’s PDP3.0 work to date as well as experience drawn from the launch of Work Track 5 in the SubPro PDP and the recently-concluded EPDP Phase One. We have listed these sources on Pages 1 & 2 of the document.

We look forward to your comments and further discussions on this subject.

Best regards,

Steve & Mary