Supplemental Recommendation Procedural Question
Dear Councilors, During the SPS, the Council discussed next steps for the SSAD recommendations. The Council agreed to the RDRS Standing Committee’s recommendation, which is to recommend that the Board non-adopt the 18 SSAD recommendations as a package in order to start the Supplemental Recommendations process, described in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#annexA>. During this discussion, a question was asked: is the Board required to non-adopt recommendations for the Council to issue supplemental recommendations? The short answer is yes. In Annex A, Section 9 of the Bylaws, there is a series of four steps that have been interpreted to be sequential steps in a process, culminating in step 9(d), where the Council has the option to develop Supplemental Recommendations. In other words, the Council cannot immediately skip to step 9(d) without the preceding three steps having been properly accounted for. In Annex A, Section 9(a), the Bylaws state that the PDP Recommendations shall be adopted unless, “the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.” Some have noted the absence of explicit mention of words like “non-adopt”, “not adopt”, or “reject” in that section; however, Section 9(b) provides, “In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.” (emphasis added). If the Board determines that GNSO policy recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, it cannot adopt the recommendations. Accordingly, non-adoption (or “not adopt” or “rejection”), while not explicitly noted, is implied. This has been ICANN org’s interpretation of the Bylaws in similar situations such as the non-adoption of the certain SubPro recommendations. In the SubPro example, the Board’s statement included its reasons for not adopting the recommendations, which triggered the Supplemental Recommendation process. The process described in Annex A, Section 9 should not be confused with Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...>, where the Council does have the opportunity to proactively modify pending recommendations that have not yet been approved by the Board; doing so does not require Board intervention. The RDRS Standing Committee did discuss this alternative and found it to have procedural challenges, in particular the requirement to reconstitute an EPDP Team that has long since been dissolved. Instead, the RDRS determined that the Supplemental Recommendations process for SubPro was efficient, allowed for community consultation, and led to effective outcomes. Accordingly, the Bylaws path was preferred over reconstituting the EPDP Team. We hope this information is helpful. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Thanks for sharing this Steve, that makes sense, and unless the Board makes that determination “by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board”, the process does not get triggered. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 D +44 (0) 20 74218 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC9C4D.88E535D0] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAABB8AADw_RQA0> and Youtube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/ZxkAABB8AADw_RQA0> From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 12 February 2026 00:02 To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Supplemental Recommendation Procedural Question Dear Councilors, During the SPS, the Council discussed next steps for the SSAD recommendations. The Council agreed to the RDRS Standing Committee’s recommendation, which is to recommend that the Board non-adopt the 18 SSAD recommendations as a package in order to start the Supplemental Recommendations process, described in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#annexA>. During this discussion, a question was asked: is the Board required to non-adopt recommendations for the Council to issue supplemental recommendations? The short answer is yes. In Annex A, Section 9 of the Bylaws, there is a series of four steps that have been interpreted to be sequential steps in a process, culminating in step 9(d), where the Council has the option to develop Supplemental Recommendations. In other words, the Council cannot immediately skip to step 9(d) without the preceding three steps having been properly accounted for. In Annex A, Section 9(a), the Bylaws state that the PDP Recommendations shall be adopted unless, “the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.” Some have noted the absence of explicit mention of words like “non-adopt”, “not adopt”, or “reject” in that section; however, Section 9(b) provides, “In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.” (emphasis added). If the Board determines that GNSO policy recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, it cannot adopt the recommendations. Accordingly, non-adoption (or “not adopt” or “rejection”), while not explicitly noted, is implied. This has been ICANN org’s interpretation of the Bylaws in similar situations such as the non-adoption of the certain SubPro recommendations. In the SubPro example, the Board’s statement included its reasons for not adopting the recommendations, which triggered the Supplemental Recommendation process. The process described in Annex A, Section 9 should not be confused with Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...>, where the Council does have the opportunity to proactively modify pending recommendations that have not yet been approved by the Board; doing so does not require Board intervention. The RDRS Standing Committee did discuss this alternative and found it to have procedural challenges, in particular the requirement to reconstitute an EPDP Team that has long since been dissolved. Instead, the RDRS determined that the Supplemental Recommendations process for SubPro was efficient, allowed for community consultation, and led to effective outcomes. Accordingly, the Bylaws path was preferred over reconstituting the EPDP Team. We hope this information is helpful. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Thank you, Steve. This is very helpful, particularly your interpretation of the bylaws. Given that the alternative options present procedural challenges, the Council’s remaining path is to initiate a supplemental procedure. This would allow for the development of supplemental recommendations should the ICANN Board determine that the original PDP recommendations are not in the best interest of ICANN or the community. Kind regards, Peter On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 7:01 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
During the SPS, the Council discussed next steps for the SSAD recommendations.
The Council agreed to the RDRS Standing Committee’s recommendation, which is to recommend that the Board non-adopt the 18 SSAD recommendations as a package in order to start the Supplemental Recommendations process, described in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#annexA>.
During this discussion, a question was asked: *is the Board required to non-adopt recommendations for the Council to issue supplemental recommendations? *
The short answer is yes.
In Annex A, Section 9 of the Bylaws, there is a series of four steps that have been interpreted to be sequential steps in a process, culminating in step 9(d), where the Council has the option to develop Supplemental Recommendations. In other words, the Council cannot immediately skip to step 9(d) without the preceding three steps having been properly accounted for.
In Annex A, Section 9(a), the Bylaws state that the PDP Recommendations shall be adopted unless, “the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.” Some have noted the absence of explicit mention of words like “non-adopt”, “not adopt”, or “reject” in that section; however, Section 9(b) provides, “In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote *is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation)*, the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.” (emphasis added).
If the Board determines that GNSO policy recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, it cannot adopt the recommendations. Accordingly, non-adoption (or “not adopt” or “rejection”), while not explicitly noted, is implied. This has been ICANN org’s interpretation of the Bylaws in similar situations such as the non-adoption of the certain SubPro recommendations. In the SubPro example, the Board’s statement included its reasons for not adopting the recommendations, which triggered the Supplemental Recommendation process.
The process described in Annex A, Section 9 should not be confused with Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...>, where the Council does have the opportunity to proactively modify pending recommendations that have not yet been approved by the Board; doing so does not require Board intervention. The RDRS Standing Committee did discuss this alternative and found it to have procedural challenges, in particular the requirement to reconstitute an EPDP Team that has long since been dissolved. Instead, the RDRS determined that the Supplemental Recommendations process for SubPro was efficient, allowed for community consultation, and led to effective outcomes. Accordingly, the Bylaws path was preferred over reconstituting the EPDP Team.
We hope this information is helpful.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Best regards *Taiwo Peter Akinremi* ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ *Phd Candidate | Principal & Executive Consultant, CSN* *Email:* compsoftnet@gmail.com, p-taiwo@compsoftnet.com.ng <peterexecute@gmail.com> ___________________________________________
participants (3)
-
Akinremi Peter Taiwo -
Steve Chan -
Susan Payne