<div>RE: This recommendation:<br></div><div><br></div><div><i>The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>Do we support this response?<br></div><div><br></div><div><i>The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP.</i><br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Offered rationale:<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><i>This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP.</i><br></div><div><br></div><div><i>The Council is of the view that a PDP “to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries” is not within the “picket fence” or ICANN’s mission.</i><br></div><div><br></div><div><i>All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN’s consensus policies.</i><br></div><div><br></div><div><i>gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations.</i><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden<br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div><p><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear councilors,</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt">A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming <b>Friday, 13 September 2019</b>.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt">Kind regards,</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt">Nathalie</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com><br> <b>Reply-To: </b>PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com><br> <b>Date: </b>Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM<br> <b>To: </b>"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Flip Petillion <fpetillion@petillion.law><br> <b>Cc: </b>"carlosraulg@gmail.com" <carlosraulg@gmail.com><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO</span></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p></div><div><div><p>Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Dear Councilors,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small <span>team's</span> proposed response is as follows:</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><p style="background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-image: none; background-size: auto; background-origin: padding-box; background-clip: border-box;"><span style="background-color:white"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">#10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time</span></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p style="background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-image: none; background-size: auto; background-origin: padding-box; background-clip: border-box;"><span style="background-color:white"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">#16 (abuse and <span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in">Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN <span>org</span></span></span></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p>#27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG<span style="font-size:11pt"></span><br></p></div></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">#29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) <span style="background-color:white">and, if appropriate, seek input from
 your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. </span></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Kind regards,<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Pam<br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">------------------------------------------------------------------</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sender:Flip <span>Petillion</span> <fpetillion@petillion.law></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Thank you Pam</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">I have no comments.<br> Best regards,</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Flip</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Flip <span> Petillion</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">fpetillion@petillion.law</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">+32484652653</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">www.petillion.law</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><img style="width:1.9895in;height:.4479in" alt="signature_1247444843" class="proton-embedded" src="cid:image001.png@01D567F3.88DEE300" width="191" height="43" border="0"></span>[petillion.law]</a><br></p><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">  </span></span></span><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt">Attorneys – <span>Advocaten</span> - <span>Avocats</span></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p></div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com><br> <b>Reply to: </b>Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com><br> <b>Date: </b>Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42<br> <b>To: </b>"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org><br> <b>Cc: </b>"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO</span></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p></div><div><div><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Dear Councilors,</span></span><br></p></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:justify"> <br></p></div><div><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list
 late July:</span></span></span><br></p><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">#16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse
 to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this.</span></span></span><br></p><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:justify"> <br></p><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="background-color:white"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">#28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently </span></span></span></span><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">clarified
 that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis <span>Group's</span> Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review.  In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response:</span></span></span><br></p><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">    From</span></span></span></b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">:
 The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <br></p></div><div><p><b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">    To</span></span></span></b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">:
 The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">A redline version is attached for your review. Please l<span style="background-color:white">et us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to </span>discussing
 this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Kind regards,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Pam</span></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">------------------------------------------------------------------</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sender:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg@gmail.com>; Carlos <span>Raul</span> Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>; Michele <span>Neylon</span> - <span>Blacknight</span> <michele@blacknight.com></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Dear Councilors,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself)
 to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from <span style="background-color:white">Larisa <span>Gurnick</span></span> forwarded by Mary to Council).</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">In </span></span><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">addition, a number of Recommendations
 were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group.  In order t<span style="background-color:white">o have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its <span>PDPs</span> stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback.</span></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <br></p></div><div><p>In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small <span> team's</span> proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed
 responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome!<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Kind regards,</span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Pam</span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">------------------------------------------------------------------</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sender:Mary <span>Wong</span> <mary.wong@icann.org></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org></span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Dear Councilors,</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa <span>Gurnick</span>, Vice-President in ICANN’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review <span>Team’s</span> (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN <span>Board’s</span> action in respect of those recommendations.</span><br></p><div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p></div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Dear Members of the GNSO Council,</span></b><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]</a> - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated
 in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN <span>org</span> to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”:</span><br></p><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations;</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN <span>org</span> to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions;</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16,
 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35).</span><br></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-<span>cct</span>-<span>recs</span>-scorecard-01mar19-en.<span>pdf</span> [icann.org]</a> which compile pass-through recommendations,
 including the groups they are addressed to.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Accordingly, ICANN <span> org</span> wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration:</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 10</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">.</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 16 (in part)</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries
 Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives
 that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”.</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 27</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">.</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 28</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">.</span><br></li><li style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 29</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested
 by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or agreeing on another term to describe <span>underserved</span> or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN <span>org</span>”<i>.</i></span><br></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations
 through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group
 will address”<i>.</i></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally,the Board suggests “to the referenced community
 groups that the CCT-<span>RT's</span> proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”<i>.</i></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered
 the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN <span>org</span> and Board track action on the CCT-<span>RT's</span> recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with
 ICANN <span>org’s</span> reporting.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><b><u><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Background</span></u></b><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.<span>pdf</span> [icann.org]</a>. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of
 top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]</a>.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]</a> - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/<span>cct</span>-final-<span>recs</span>-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]</a>).</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">The <span> Board’s</span> decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-<span>cct</span>-<span>recs</span>-scorecard-01mar19-en.<span>pdf</span> [icann.org]</a>. A blog post on the Board action can
 be found at <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]</a> for more context.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Thank you.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Best regards<b>.</b></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Larisa <span> Gurnick</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN</span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p><div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span><br></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>