Thanks Marika. I’m fine with the change in the template that asks for specific identification of whether or not a Board liaison should be appointed to the WG and whether or not a GDS liaison should be appointed. Regarding the identification of the impact on existing policies, and as previously expressed in our meeting on this specific topic, it is not workable to require the WG to identify all existing consensus policies that will be affected by its work. In this regard, the draft language referring to “such as” is very problematic. These are volunteers and the responsibility for identifying ICANN consensus policies that may be affected by the work of the Working Group should rest with staff initially in the Charter and then on an ongoing basis should rest with the ICANN Global Domains liaison. The language that has been drafted is far too broad and puts the onus on the WG and its Chairs, who, again, are not being paid to conduct this work and are not the experts on all existing consensus policies. I believe that when I raised this in our meeting, Kurt Pritz also expressed some concern for the possible implications. The drafting would have to be significantly revised to reflect this concern. Here is the redline for full consideration by all Councilors, followed by a “purple line” showing my suggested revisions: , the WG is expected to consider the potential impact of any recommendations it may put forward on existing policies such as [TO BE COMPLETED BY CHARTER DRAFTING TEAM: indicate if specific policies are expected to be impacted – see list of existing consensus policies here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en]. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in its recommendations about how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. Note that any GDS Liaison to the WG is also tasked to prepare and provide analysis of the impact of policy recommendations on existing policies, as needed. Below are my recommended revisions to the draft text: the WG is expected to consider the potential impact of any recommendations it may put forward on existing policies that are identified in this Working Group Charter and/or raised during the course of WG deliberations by ICANN Staff or the GDS Liaison [TO BE COMPLETED BY CHARTER DRAFTING TEAM: indicate if specific policies are expected to be impacted – see list of existing consensus policies here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en]. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in its recommendations about how this impact might be addressed by the Council or an IRT, in order to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. Note that any GDS Liaison to the WG is also tasked to prepare and provide timely analysis of the potential impact of policy recommendations on existing policies, as needed during the course of WG deliberations. In the event that the GDS liaison or the WG Chairs perceive a need for amendment of the Charter of the Working Group to address specific aspects of existing consensus policy, this concern will be promptly raised with the Council liaison to the WG for discussion at the Council level. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D9058A.76DAD960] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings via council Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 4:01 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] PDP Improvements #4 and #6 - updated GNSO Charter Template for your review [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, In line with the proposed next steps for PDP improvements #4 and #6 (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD), the staff support team has gone ahead and included proposed additions to the GNSO Charter template – see sections II and IV. You can review these in redline format in the attached document. If you have any suggestions or concerns about these proposed additions, please share these with the Council mailing list by 23 December at the latest. Depending on the feedback received, we’ll either plan for further review/discussion or post the updated version on the GNSO Procedures web-site. Best regards, Marika ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.