To clarify, my opposition is to the RVCs being included in the registry contract. RVCs in the application and in the registry operator’s policies I don’t mind. But in no way should my lack of calling out 9.9 specifically indicate support for 9 overall. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis@verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_1932908514] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 2:55 PM To: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com>, New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. George, I think you need to read the responses carefully to get the intricacies of the statement that everyone has made to understand why we have labeled them as consensus. For example, according to the responses, Jim, Elaine and Jessica did not state that they opposed the recommendation in 9.9. They have some issues with the rationale and they would like the rationale to be worked on, but they have not indicated opposition to 9.9. Greg actually stated the opposite, that he supported 9.9 and does not see any way that PICs could violate the Bylaws. The ONLY objection to the recommendation came from Kathy. And one person’s objection does not indicate a lack of consensus. Happy to discuss further in 10 minutes. [cid:image002.png@01D6E8F4.04491150] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:38 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs Dear Jeff and Cheryl, At the end of this long effort, I want to thank you very much for your willingness to lead what appears to have turned out to be a major life event for you both! I would like to note for the record that I support the concerns raised by Greg, Elaine Pruis, Jim Prendergast, Jessica Hooper, Kathy Kleiman and others on Topic 9 about RVCs, and specifically oppose draft recommendations 9.9 and 9.10. I do not think these recommendations have consensus without absolute clarity and determination that PICs and RVCs must not and will not violate the scope and mission of ICANN. I share the current Board members worries, and the dilemma that ICANN will be asked to enforce things outside its scope and mission, which it cannot do (directly or through a third party). The Board members who have contributed their views on this are right; we cannot allow this to happen. I do not think these recommendations have consensus to move forward - under any definition of consensus that I know. This certainly would not pass the carefully considered consensus evaluation of RFC 7282, which is in my opinion one of the most careful and considerate studies of the factors that are relevant and important in assessing a degree of consensus. Best regards, George