<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:132871816;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-597003016 1323098432 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:275261477;
mso-list-template-ids:-1813995888;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:600724837;
mso-list-template-ids:-1302976122;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:642195210;
mso-list-template-ids:-524230892;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1289891232;
mso-list-template-ids:1126447688;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:1798403255;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-675786846 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Hi Rubens,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I think Jeff clarified yesterday that the Review Recommendations are in fact recommendations to the Board – in the sense that the Board, as the final arbiter, as to deal
with these in some manner. It seems that in the draft, we are taking the position that this PDP can certainly question, reexamine, and disagree with those Recommendations and that some of them relate to matters of contract between the Contracted Parties and
ICANN org. You state that these matters are “inside the picket fence” and thus out of scope for the PDP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I would note two things:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">I.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">When there is disagreement between two bodies giving policy advice to the ICANN Board, the Board often seems to come back and request a “work-out”. I think that
is why Jeff and Cheryl seemed to agree yesterday on the call that our guidance on treatment of the CCT-RT Review Recommendations has to come from the GNSO Council. As we know, these processes can be time-consuming. So I think we all need to think about
how to “cut to the chase”. Unless these differences are addressed correctly from a procedural standpoint, there will be a bottleneck to launching the next round. I am not sure our Charter is crystal clear on this point. See reference to CCT-RT work from
the final Charter pasted below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="778" height="170" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image003.png@01D45A47.10C52380"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">II.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Regarding the “picket fence”, it strikes me there are a number of items being considered in the Sub Pro PDP that might require changes to the RA and RAA, including
changes that are desired by the Contracted Parties. Should this PDP be doing an “audit” in this regard as to which policy changes might affect the Contracts? As I understand it, the rule for a GNSO PDP is that the RA and RAA may only be affected by Consensus
Policy recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board. I do not understand the scope of the PDP to EXCLUDE entirely every topic that would result in a change to the standard RA or RAA. Excerpts from the Charter relative to contracts appear below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="713" height="125" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image004.png@01D45A47.10C52380"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="754" height="42" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image002.png@01D45A47.7858CB50"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Pasted below again for convenience are my preliminary questions on the draft “What still needs to be done” box of the Recommendations chart.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">“Jeff and Cheryl,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding agenda item 3 – Initial Assessment of work required in response to the Final Consumer Confidence and Trust Review Team Report, I have the following
preliminary questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Regarding Recommendation 9 of CCT-RT, the draft response for our WG refers that matter to the RPM “PDP”. However, my understanding
is that the RPM Review is a required Review and not a Policy Development Process. Is that incorrect? Should the RPM Review results be incorporated into the work of the Sub Pro PDP or do they stand alone as separate policy recommendations to the GNSO? In
other words, what is the status of the mandated “Reviews” in relation to future gTLD policy?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Regarding Recommendations 14 and 15 of the CCT-RT related to DNS Security Abuse and consideration of a possible DNS Abuse Dispute
Resolution Policy, it appears the draft Responses says that such matters are outside the “remit” of the Subsequent Procedures Working Group and not within the purview of the community. It is stated that these are suggestions to be negotiated between ICANN
and the Contracted Parties. Has this been discussed in the full WG?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT
has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations. Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations.
Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT? If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before
making recommendations to the ICANN Board?”<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#AF272F">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Of Counsel</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.629.4428 office</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.879.4725 fax</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">_____________________________</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="115" height="46" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image006.png@01D45A47.914A4AD0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">lrrc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Rubens Kuhl [<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 01, 2018 8:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Steve Chan; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding
Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations. Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations
and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse?</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rec. 14 has two angles, one that can't be looked in a PDP, one that can. The one that can't are financial incentives; this would be a direct violation of the picket fence. But as long as the non-financial incentives do not violate any contract
clause, this could be a PDP; but since existing agreements are mentioned, this can only be some other PDP than SubPro. So my guess is that the response is looking into what could specifically apply to subsequent gTLDs, since the recommendation per se couldn't
be dealt by SubPro PDP. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations. Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT? If the Reviews represent separate policy
recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board?</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reviews represent advice applicable to all ICANN organisations, including Board and GNSO, but I don't see them as binding. I believe they have to be duly considered either by SubPro PDP, for those applicable to new procedures, or by
some other PDP, if applicable to all gTLDs (like rec. 14 and 16) .<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rubens<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>