All, Following on from Item 6 at our June 13 meeting, Jeff has already circulated and e-mail together with an attachment containing his notes for leading the discussion. My understanding is that, through a combination of what was proposed to the meeting and what was discussed in the meeting, the following course of action is agreed: 1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). 2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. 3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board. The objective of each of the above 3 can be summarised as follows: 1. The Board Governance Committee - Drafted by [Jeff]. a. To highlight and describe the key concerns with output of the committee i.e. with the rationalisation for the reconsideration decision. b. To make it clear that the desired outcome is to remove the current rationalisation from the record (and not to overturn the outcome of the reconsideration). c. To recognise that the Council's intervention in these processes is for very specific reasons and because of the perceived potential impact on the GNSO and indeed the MS Model. 2. The ATRT2 - Drafted by [Volunteer]. a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency. b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT. 3. The ICANN Board - Drafted by [Jonathan]. a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice. c. To propose solutions such as: i. Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions) ii. Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws That summarises my understanding. I look forward to receiving your comments; supporting, not supporting or refining the above points. N.B. I have suggested Jeff drafts 1, someone volunteers to draft 2 and I draft 3. Thanks, Jonathan