Dear Paul: Th Community has no interest in fomenting antagonism between GNSO and the GAC. To do so, reflects a serious lack of understanding and experience of the process whereby ICANN was created in its present form. If anything, the Transition resulted in reinforcing GAC's potential influence in the ICANN Community. Accordingly, I could not support the amendments that you are proposing in this regard. Regards Christopher From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 2:57 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com >; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au ) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Hi All, I have not been able to connect with Greg on this as hoped. Even so, I submit the following change which I believes deals with concerns some have raised that we cannot tie the ICANN Board’s hands but at the same time want to create a sense of urgency-leading-to-predictability in relationship to when the GAC gives advice: [ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.] I hope this balance is acceptable to the WG. This is an area of failure for the community in the last round and I think it would be really unfortunate if we set ourselves up for failure again by not addressing it in the new AGB. Jeff/Cheryl, will one of you please confirm receipt and that this will be on our agenda for discussion in the appropriate WG call? Thanks! Best, Paul