<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Colleagues -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, please accept my sincere thanks for a spirited, thoughtful, and engaged discussion of this topic and these materials on the list. Even if the points raised are not completely aligned, it’s reflective of the diverse nature of the GNSO Council & Community
that this group was able to develop this topic so quickly and comprehensively. And just a gentle reminder, that was precisely the goal of this effort: to gather, assemble and enumerate issues that could advance the development new policy, or expand the existing
Expected Standards of Behavior. It wasn’t the intention to actually draft that policy at the Council level. Also, many thanks to Mary for collecting & coordinating comments & edits from Jennifer, Ed, Stephanie, Volker, Phil and others. Everyone should recognize
their own thoughts reflected in the most recent drafts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Where we currently stand -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Attached, please find a draft “Cover Letter” from the Council to Akram. This letter thanks Akram for his recent blog post, and encourages further work from Staff, the Board, and the Community to examine the issues and develop recommendations for solutions.
It also lays out some general questions about the nature of any future Policy, how it would be defined, be enforced, and respect due process. It also references materials and statements from other communities (NCUC, IETF) and the “Key Points” document drafted
by the Council sub group.</li><li>Also attached is a draft of “Key Points for Consideration”. These are issues and questions that we as a Council believe should be considered by future efforts. Thanks to all who contributed to this document. While not perfect, it is much more evolved
and robust than just a few days ago.</li><li>Any other statements forthcoming from SGs, Cs, or other groups. Please reply if you are aware of any. For example, I believe the Registrar Stakeholder Group will reiterate its request to the Board that it engage independent experts in this effort.</li><li>(Finally, for all the kudos on this effort, special thanks to Jennifer who volunteered to coordinate <b>both</b> the sub-team Key Points draft, and comments leading to the (forthcoming) RrSG statement. No good deed goes unpunished!)</li></ul>
<div>Once again, this isn’t the end of this work, but our attempt to launch it properly and contribute input from the GNSO community & Council to the effort, which is already getting started. There’s more to do, but I think we’re off to a great start. Please
reply by EOD tomorrow if you have any further edits or comments.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you—</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>J.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>