Thank you Pam. I think this is covered in the Executive Summary at pages 3 and 4 of the draft. While most of the 300+ Outputs in the Final Report were approved by the GNSO Council, there are three exceptions: • The single Output under Topic 23: Closed Generics was classified in the Final Report as Output category No Agreement. While the Working Group agreed by Full Consensus that there was No Agreement on this topic, the GNSO Council believes No Agreement is functionally equivalent to the designation of Divergence as detailed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, meaning that the Working Group was unable to reach Consensus in recommending an alternate course of action. • Two of the Outputs under Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, obtained the designation Strong Support but Significant Opposition and were not approved by the GNSO Council. Hope this helps. Best regards, 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 From: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Reply to: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Date: Monday, 22 March 2021 at 23:12 To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Flip Petillion <fpetillion@petillion.law> Subject: Re: [council] Agenda of our next Council meeting of 24 March 2021 - ODP liaison Dear Flip, Thank you for the proposed amendments to the draft Recommendations Report on the SubPro PDP Final Report. I note one of the proposed amendments is to substitute current Annex B (Summary of Outputs) with the the SubPro PDP Final Report. Could you please clarify whether and how you propose to change the current language in Annex B: "Annex B: Final Outputs In order to provide a complete record for reference, the following summary includes all Outputs from the PDP Working Group’s Final Report, including those Outputs that the GNSO Council did not approve. For clarity, Outputs that were not approved (23.1, 35.2, and 35.4) are printed in red text and marked “This output was not approved by the GNSO Council.” I am seeking your clarification as the current language seems to be consistent with Whereas Clause #13 of the motion that Council voted on: "13. The GNSO Council notes that Topic 23: Closed Generics was identified as an Output category of No Agreement, which did achieve Full Consensus. However, the GNSO Council believes No Agreement is functionally equivalent to the designation of Divergence as detailed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, meaning that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus in recommending an alternate course of action. The GNSO Council further notes that especially as it relates to Topic 23: Closed Generics, there were diverging interpretations within the Working Group of what constitutes the "status quo"." Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent At:2021 Mar. 20 (Sat.) 07:03 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:[council] Agenda of our next Council meeting of 24 March 2021 - ODP liaison Dear Councilors, 1. next Council meeting Item 3 / Consent Agenda of our next Council meeting of 24 March 2021 is: Confirmation of the draft Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of relevant Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. As this is supposed to be a communication by the GNSO Council to the Board, I propose to amend this draft as follows: Annex B Although the draft contains a link to the Final Report, I propose to substitute Annex B to this draft with the Full Report approved by Council on 18 February 2021. That way, the Final Report will be formally handed over to the Board. I do not think this change is contentious given the Final Report contains Annex B. Other changes I would like to propose to ensure consistency with the GNSO Council motion we unanimously adopted, are as follows: On page 3, Executive Summary first paragraph : I propose to add the following language (in yellow): On 18 February 2021, the GNSO Council voted to approve, by a GNSO Supermajority, the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance (collectively referred to as "Outputs") that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations by the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group. This reflects that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group operated on the basis that unless consensus was reached, the status quo would remain in place as a default position. This Recommendations Report is being sent to the ICANN Board for its review of the Outputs approved by the GNSO Council, which the GNSO Council recommends be adopted by the ICANN Board. Please see Annex A of this Recommendations Report for a summary of all of the Outputs. Page 8, second and third paragraph: I propose to delete the following language (in yellow), as it is inconsistent with the Council resolution: The GNSO Council has requested that the ICANN Board initiate an Operational Design Phase (ODP) on the Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and its approved Outputs as soon as possible. The objective of the ODP is to perform an assessment of GNSO Council recommendations in order to provide the Board with relevant operational information to facilitate the Board’s determination, in accordance with the Bylaws, on the operational impact of the implementation of the approved Outputs, including whether the approved Outputs are in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. The results of the ODP assessment may provide additional insight into the period of time needed to implement the adopted Outputs, including whether there is community work that must be completed prior to either implementation or the opening of subsequent application rounds. In reviewing the Final Report, the Board may identify specific topic areas and/or Outputs that require further analysis to support Board consideration. In addition, it is likely that the Outputs contained in the Final Report that the GNSO Council did not approve may nevertheless warrant the Board’s attention and examination of possible ways forward: The GNSO Council resolution language stated: “2. Recognizing that nearly a decade has passed since the opening of the 2012 round of new gTLDs, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board consider and direct the implementation of the Outputs adopted by the GNSO Council without waiting for any other proposed or ongoing policy work unspecific to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to conclude, while acknowledging the importance of such work.” Page 9, second paragraph: I propose to delete the following language (in yellow) as it is inconsistent with the Council resolution: Under its Charter requirements, the Working Group took into account outputs of concluded efforts (for example the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) and the Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG-UCTN) ) and coordinated its work with other relevant efforts that ran concurrently (for example the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanism in All gTLDs (RPMs) Policy Development Process and the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) ). In its resolution approving the PDP’s Outputs, the GNSO Council requested that “the ICANN Board consider and direct the implementation of the Outputs adopted by the GNSO Council without waiting for any other proposed or ongoing policy work unspecific to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to conclude, while acknowledging the importance of such work.” Drawing on the ODP assessment, the Board may consider the extent to which it is feasible to advance implementation of subsequent procedures independent of any other relevant community work, such as the impending Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) focused on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and in particular, IDN variant TLDs. Page 11: I propose to change the following language (in yellow and strikethrough) The Working Group’s Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 18 January 2021 and can be found in full here. The full text of all Outputs are is included as Annex B to this Recommendations Report. 2. ODP liaison for the Council I examined the next steps for the Sub Pro PDP and the ODP. I understand that the ODP Process Paper encourages the Council to appoint a liaison to the ODP to streamline communications between ICANN org’s ODP team and the Council should any questions on the substance or intent of recommendations arise. I observed that the liaison will serve as the primary contact between ICANN org’s ODP team and the GNSO Council on questions pertaining to the substance or intent of the GNSO Council recommendations. The liaison is expected to keep the GNSO Council informed about their engagement with ICANN org on these questions and should be empowered. As the Process Paper suggests that the ODP liaison preferably has had previous involvement with the relevant PDP, please note that I offer to be the ODP liaison for the Council. Respectfully submitted, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion@petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law [cid:image002.png@01D71FDA.7C4B7310]<https://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats
