<div dir="ltr"><span id="m_3214363748942014130gmail-docs-internal-guid-fde80f77-7fff-c9f2-6c0e-732da0422d47"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Hi all,</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">emphasize</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">unfortunately</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldn’t be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didn’t envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">bound</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesn’t agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Best Regards,</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Rafik</span></p></span><br></div>