Dear Councilors, It ICANN 80, Council received an update from staff regarding the Recommendations Report that the Council votes to approve and sends to the ICANN Board (which generally takes place one month after recommendations from an PDP/EPDP are approved). The action items from the Strategic Planning Session on this topic were focused on understanding the origins of the Recommendations Report and determining if and how the format may be amended. Staff reported that per the ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, the Recommendations Report is a required step of the PDP. Staff also shared that per Section 13 of the GNSO Operating Procedures, the format is essentially a shared responsibility between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board and that if changes are needed, the two parties should work together collaboratively. To see the existing format, please see two recent examples: IDNs-EPDP Phase 1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/epdp-i...> and the GGP on Applicant Support<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/ggp-ap...>. One of the concerns raised in recent discussions is speculation that the Board may consider the Recommendations Report as a substitute for the Final Report. After looking into this issue with ICANN staff, Council leadership has not identified an instance in which this has occurred. Another concern raised is that the Recommendations Report, which is sent at least one month after recommendations from an PDP/EPDP are approved by the Council, creates unnecessary delays. Council leadership understands that the Recommendations Report is managed concurrently with the Bylaws-mandated public comment period; since the duration of the public comment period is longer than the Recommendations Report process, it's not clear that the Recommendations Report alone is creating delays. With some questioning the utility of the Recommendations Report, where does this leave us? Given Council leadership input to the concerns above, do any Councilors have serious concerns? If so, can they be resolved by proposing amendments to the Recommendations Report format? From the Council leadership perspective, we are seeking your input on these specific questions. Unless we hear back by 15 August that changes are needed, we intend to consider this set of SPS action items complete. Thanks, Greg