<html 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="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:Calibri;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Working Group Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on the proposed questions, which will be considered by the
Private Protections Sub Team.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28 May
2017” exceed the scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the questions and identifying
related data needs. We continue to believe that would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure
for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH, Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which should ensure a robust discussion
and diversity of viewpoints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns
if the subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full WG prior to initiating
full WG discussion of the refined questions. Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment
from Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this
subject. It is also worth noting the Guidelines for GNSO WGs make it clear that: <i>“Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage
of our process, we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with
supporting policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving such concerns within a policy WG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also state: <i>“Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal
a decision of the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization
or their designated representative.”</i> The co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member, but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations, and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters
can be resolved via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>