Hi all, In preparation for our joint meeting tomorrow with the GAC, and following our joint prep call on 26 February, I sent the following email to Manal last week. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 2:38 AM To: 'manal@tra.gov.eg' <manal@tra.gov.eg> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; gnso-chairs@icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Questions for Kobe Meeting with GAC on IGO-INGO CRP Dear Manal, I would like to thank you and GAC colleagues who participated in our joint call on 26 February in preparation for the upcoming GNSO Council and GAC meeting in Kobe. As we discussed, the GNSO Council continues our deliberations on the most appropriate path forward related to the IGO-INGO CRP Final Report, and we look forward to additional GAC input on some key questions, as follows. As I mentioned during our call, the GNSO Council is considering several options and GAC views will help inform our decision-making. Under GNSO Council consideration are four options, and there is not yet consensus in support of any particular approach. All options remain on the table. They are: 1. Approve the Final Report and forward it to the ICANN Board. 2. Not accept the Final Report and re-start the work under a new Charter with some process management and structural improvements; 3. Not accept the Final Report and refer it to the ongoing Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG for consideration in Phase 2. 4. Approve Recommendations 1-4 and refer Recommendation 5 to the RPM PDP WG for consideration in Phase 2, or re-start under a newly Chartered EPDP. Our questions for GAC colleagues are specifically focused on Options 2, 3 and 4 above. If the GNSO Council were to not accept the existing Final Report and re-consider the work under a new Charter or refer it to the RPM PDP WG: 1. Would interested parties among GAC members be willing and available to participate in a new targeted PDP or sub-group of the RPM PDP WG focused on IGO-INGO CRP policy? 2. Does the GAC have views on the efficacy of the recent experiences in the EPDP and the Subsequent Procedures Work Track 5, and whether those might be suitable structures for considering the topic of IGO curative rights protections? 3. Does the GAC see the RPM PDP WG as a potentially suitable venue to resolve these policy issues during its Phase 2 work on the UDRP? 4. Recognizing the procedural challenges facing the GNSO Council, are there any other forward-looking suggestions the GAC would like to suggest toward a reasonable solution on this outstanding issue? Again, as we discussed during our 26 February call, we hope to use our time together in Kobe to engage in constructive dialogue to help advance this issue to an acceptable conclusion. Your consideration of these questions will be very much appreciated. With sincere thanks, Keith Drazek GNSO Chair