Thanks John, Given the tight time frame and the need for a discussion, this email will come across as more of a “blurt” rather than a carefully thought-through letter. Current situation / recent developments: 1. The SubPro WG discussed this issue over several years. There were three possible areas of consensus: to allow unrestricted delegation to closed generics, to allow restricted delegation of close generics, to ban delegation of closed generics. The WG final report indicates that no consensus was reached, that there could not be a return to the status quo because there was no consensus regarding that, and that the Board was to decide the issue. 2. The Board kicked the issue back to the GNSO and GAC with the guidance that a solution framework must only consider restricted of closed generics. The effort failed to produce a result. 3. The draft letter being considered indicates that closed generics should be banned. Recommendation: The GNSO Council should not sign this letter. It should either: 1. Send its own letter, similar to that already drafted by us but adding a paragraph explaining that the GAC-ALAC letter overturns the results of the multi-stakeholder process, or 2. Revise the proposed jointly issued letter to state that the GAC-GNSO discussion failed to develop a framework, and that this issue should not delay the next round, with no other comment. Rationale: 1. The GAC-ALAC letter alters the SubPro Final Report that made no recommendation and stating that there was no agreement on status quo. The letter does this without using any of the approved methodologies for amending policy recommendations. 2. The Final Report recommends that subsequent policy work, “should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics ... [, and] be performed by those ... that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications.” The GAC-ALAC letter creates this subsequent policy without following the requirement to consult with others. 3. The Board-Facilitated Process for a GAC - GNSO Council Dialogue on Closed Generics: A Framing Paper prepared by ICANN<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/gnso-c...> states on p.6: "Should the dialogue not result in a mutually agreed framework, it may be presumed that the Board will need to decide on what the most appropriate action is, within the Bylaws-defined roles and respective remits of the Board, GAC and GNSO.” The GAC-ALAC letter ignores this and creates its own desired policy solution. 4. Relegating the GNSO position to a footnote demotes the identification and significance of this issue and effectively surrenders the result of several years of community volunteer time and policy discussion. A better result would be to relegate the entire issue to a footnote, i.e., remove there point from the body of the letter and add a footnote to the effect that the GNSO intention is to return the issue to the Board as stated in the SubPro Final Report and the charter for the facilitated discussion, while the GAC and ALAC prefers to alter the policy recommendation and continue the closed generics ban. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I’d be happy to engage in a dialogue. Regards to all, Kurt On 27 Sep 2023, at 8:21 am, Paul McGrady via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Thanks John. Sorry to be “that guy” but the footnote makes it sounds like we debated the substance of the issue at the Council meeting. I think a more precise footnote would be: “The chair of the GNSO Council must remain neutral on this request. This topic was discussed at the Council’s August meeting and the Council noted that it could not support for this request since Policy is not made by the Council initially but rather through its PDP process.” Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of John McElwaine via council Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 3:27 PM To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Revised ALAC-GAC-GNSO Chair's Joint Letter Dear Councilors, Sebastien, Nico Caballero and Jonathan Zuck had a call last week to discuss the joint ALAC-GAC-GNSO Chairs' letter to the Board regarding the Facilitated Dialogue. Both the ALAC and GAC wanted to state that the status quo should be requested in the second bullet point. That said, the ALAC and GAC understood that the GNSO chair needs to remain neutral on this topic. We have attached a version of the letter reflecting this in the footnote. Keep in mind that this is a joint letter and primarily meant to communicate that work on the Facilitate Dialogue has reached an end but should not in any way delay the next round of new gTLDs. As this letter has been with Council for some time, we would ask that we have your comments, if any, by Thursday (9/28) at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, John [http://www.nelsonmullins.com/img/ecard-logo.png] JOHN C. MCELWAINE PARTNER john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com<mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> LIBERTY CENTER | SUITE 600 151 MEETING STREET | CHARLESTON, SC 29401 T 843.534.4302 F 843.722.8700 101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW | SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, D.C., 20001 T 202.689.2939 F 202.689.2860 NELSONMULLINS.COM<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/> VCARD<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine/vcard> VIEW BIO<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine> Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.