Dear Thomas – Thank you for your email and accompanying clarifications. We do not dispute the chronology of events as you have outlined in your message. However, we would like to clarify a few key points relating to GNSO awareness and participation: · Despite several discussions and email exchanges covering some of the general aspects of the “small group,” the Board letter of 4 October 2016 was the first opportunity for the GNSO Council to review any aspect of the proposal, and consider our response. · Originally we expected a proposal from the “small group” by late 2014 or early 2015, which would have allowed for more timely review action from the GNSO Council and the PDP working group. Unfortunately, the significant delay in receiving the final proposal has created new challenges, and limited the GNSO Council’s options for a response. · ICANN Policy Staff has the full confidence of the GNSO Council. We acknowledge that Staff (and in some instances, the GNSO liaison to the GAC) were involved in some discussions and email exchanges. However, there appears to be a miscommunication about the nature of their involvement. Neither were authorized to represent the GNSO Council in these discussions, nor were the details of “small group” deliberations shared with them. We acknowledge, and to a large degree, we share the frustrations regarding the length of time taken to get to this point. Be assured that the GNSO Council has prioritized this issue, but due to the unprecedented complexity of this topic, we respectfully request that the GAC and the broader community allow us the necessary time to diligently consider our options to move this work towards resolution. Thank you--- Donna Austin, GNSO Council Vice Chair James Bladel, GNSO Council Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Council Vice Chair Cc: GNSO Council, ICANN Board