<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sending on behalf of the CCWG Co-Chairs<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thank you for those who participated in the indicative poll and those who submitted comments on the most recent draft of the proposed Final Report. Attached please find the results of the indicative
poll. As summarized in the spreadsheet, fourteen members out of twenty-three members responded. In addition, eight participants provided their input.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">In response to the question “Are you of the view that the CCWG should only recommend one mechanism for ICANN Board consideration, even if your preferred mechanism does not come out as the preferred
mechanism of the CCWG overall?”, six members indicated their preference to recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, five members indicated their preference to only recommend 1 mechanism, two members indicated their preference to recommend
all three mechanism and one member indicated no preference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">In response to the ranking, seven members recommended mechanism A as their preferred mechanism, four members ranked mechanism B as their preferred mechanism and three members ranked mechanism C
first. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">After reviewing these results, the leadership team believes that the best path forward is to recommend mechanism A and mechanism B in the proposed Final Report, but the leadership team is not discarding
mechanism C (an ICANN Foundation) yet. The attached revision to the proposed Final Report includes updates based on the most recent round of comments from members, as well as revisions in line with the leadership team’s suggested approach regarding the mechanisms.
Note that the report includes the following text: “As a number of members did not participate in the indicative survey it is possible that the outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, consideration of input received and consultations by the
members with their respective appointing organizations.”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The leadership team proposes that the CCWG review the poll results, suggested approach, and report revisions
<b>by the end of this week (Friday 20 December)</b> and that we open the public comment forum on Monday 23 December (see proposed announcement attached).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thanks in advance for your review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:153.6pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Erika and Ching<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>