<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Jeff and Cheryl,</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s been a difficult week in the US and the world,
including those of living in the Washington DC area. Thank you for the additional
time to complete my response to the Consensus Call.</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I join my fellow Working Group members in appreciation of
your leadership of this long-running WG and its dynamic and robust discussions on
many important topics for New gTLDs. We will leave ICANN with new gTLD structures
and processes clearer and more robust than those we found. </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I must rise, however, in opposition to Recommendations 9.9
and 9.10 in Topic 9 on RVCs and private PICs. I strongly oppose the inclusion
of both recommendations in our report to Council, and respectfully submit that
they have neither Consensus nor Strong Support across the WG or Community. </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Specifically, private PICs (now RVCs) and the PICDRP were never
created by the GNSO or a PDP; they were imposed by a former ICANN CEO hoping to create a mechanism
for addressing calls from the GAC for a place in the ICANN-New gTLD Registry
Agreement to address Early Warnings and GAC Advice (the GAC was seeking ways to limit access to a gTLD (for sensitive and highly-sensitive
strings) and ways to open gTLDs (for those creating exclusive access to generic TLDs in dozens of businesses and industries)). <u>Happily, the use of private PICs/RVCs
for GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings is now embodied in
our Recommendation 30.7.</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ditto for the idea of using a private PICs/RVC to settle a
formal objection. <u>Recommendation
31.16 creates the opportunity for an applicant “to amend an application or add
Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVC)s” to end an objection; the recommendation then requires the change to
proceed through the Application Change Request process and into public comment for all
to see, review and comment on.</u> Excellent.</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This leaves Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 for the “kitchen
sink” – the range of private and potentially abusive commitments that a
registry might make in its own interests or on behalf of special interests adopt in potential
violation of a) the scope and mission of ICANN, b) our Human Rights
Core Value, c) fundamental rights for registrants, including Freedom of
Expression and due process, c) and respect for the GNSO, our PDPs and the
policies we arrive at through our consensus processes. </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 continue the process of undermining ICANN processes, policies and bylaws started in 2013 and
2014. Some private PICs were appalling and abusive then; it will undermine
ICANN’s integrity and independence to go forward in a similar manner now. ICANN cannot act outside its scope and
mission, nor can ICANN authorize someone else to act on its behalf outside its scope and mission. These two recommendations are
outside our scope and mandate, and respectfully, outside the agreement of this WG. <i></i></p><p><i></i></p><i></i>
<p class="MsoNormal">Accordingly, I oppose the inclusion of Recommendations 9.9
and 9.10 as recommendations from this WG to the GNSO Council. <i>I notify the Co-Chairs of my intent to file
a Minority Statement by the upcoming deadline pursuant to GNSO Working Group Guidelines</i></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wish to thank my fellow WG members for our discussions and
debates. May 2021 be a happy and healthy year for you and your family. As for me, Inauguration Day in the US cannot
come soon enough.</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<br />
Kathy </p><p></p><br /></body></html>