Council Staff: See the IPC’s statement and rationale for it’s “no” vote on the Board Un-Adoption Process in Updated GGP and PDP Manuals. Please post it where appropriate. While the IPC respects the votes and opinion of all Councilors, we are disappointed in today’s result. As we noted in our comment submitted on January 26, 2026, the process to unadopt GNSO Policy Recommendations has two fatal flaws. First, it supports the notion that ICANN can’t accomplish tasks in a timely manner and second, it’s contrary to ICANN’s bylaws. A constant criticism of ICANN is the perception, and often reality, that the organization and community as a whole simply can’t get things done. This isn’t a meritless critique. We on Council have dealt with several key issues over the past few months that are a decade or more in the making. Yes, they are stale and at times no longer fit for purpose. But, the reason for this is that ICANN simply took way too long to implement them. Council should be encouraging the Board and ICANN Org to expedite Council policy recommendations. Today’s vote does the opposite as it builds in an off ramp when no action is taken and in fact encourages inaction. More troubling though is that the revisions we approved tonight are contrary to ICANN’s own bylaws. As the IPC mentioned in its comment, the Board’s voting threshold for these actions is changed from a “majority”, as specified under the Bylaws, to a “super majority” which, frankly speaking, simply isn’t a change that can be validly achieved through the GNSO’s Operating Procedures. This type of change needed to go through the bylaws amendment procedure and it didn’t. What that means is that any future decision the Board purports to make under this process, which someone objects to, is at risk of being overturned by the Court. That creates uncertainty, opens ICANN up to legal costs, and undermines its credibility. The IPC appreciates ICANN staff’s revisions to the proposed changes but they simply do not address the IPC’s concerns. The IPC is ready and willing to work with Council, ICANN org, and the ICANN Board to improve the procedures and processes used to implement Council recommendations. Thank you for your time. J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. ​​​​ O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL ​& WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.