<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Dear Flip and fellow Councillors: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks very much for the work done on the motion (recognizing that is a small percentage of the multi-year effort that has been put in).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’d be pleased to second the motion. I also wish to offer two amendments supported by the RrSG and RySG Leadership that should, I think, be considered separately. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The <b class="">first amendment </b>removes the second portion of this part of the resolution: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">The GNSO Council adopts the Final Report of the SubPro Working Group and recommends the implementation of each of the Outputs that have obtained either Consensus or Full Consensus designations by the ICANN Board of Directors.<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><blockquote class="" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><strike class="">The GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board take note of Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, the two Outputs that have obtained Strong Support but Significant Opposition, including the rationale and the minority statements associated with those Outputs.</strike></blockquote><blockquote class="" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><br class=""></blockquote>The reasons for this were described in an earlier email. Briefly, we think the Board will have an easier time approving the SubPro recommendations if they are not put in the position of considering policy that is not supported by a consensus of the working group. In addition, we think it is important to draw a bright line that is congruent with the working group's agreement that only consensus-level recommendations would become part of the next program round. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The <b class="">second amendment </b>adapts the first portion of the same amendment to more assertively fulfill the Council’s policy role: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div class="">The GNSO Council adopts the Final Report of the SubPro Working Group and recommends the implementation of each of the Outputs that have obtained either Consensus or Full Consensus designations by the ICANN Board of Directors.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Becomes, </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, <strike class="">all </strike>the <strike class="">Outputs</strike> Affirmations, Recommendations and Implementation Guidance that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations as documented in the SubPro PDP Working Group's Final Report.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote>The reason for this is that the Council is in the business of making (through its delegated Working Groups) and approving specific policy and associated recommendations — and not reports generally. Again, we think that refining this portion of the resolution will facilitate acceptance by the Board and better focus the role fo the Council. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I and other RrSG and RySG Council representatives can answer questions or requests for additional information. An edited version of the amendment is attached. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Best regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kurt</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>