I agree Stephen – that is a long list of questions back after all this time and we are going to need to try and work out what they are getting at.

From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:52 AM
To: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: [ccnso-council] Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take extra care when clicking links or opening attachments.

Greetings all,

I will reserve my thoughts regarding the appropriateness of the ICANN Board attempting to shape/dictate ccNSO (indeed, all SO/AC) policy writ large for further correspondence,

I think the way forward for us is for me, as the chair of the PDP3 WG, to “get the band back together” and have a couple of calls with the WG to focus on the Board’s questions/concerns.  The WG members are after all the subject matter experts, having spent hundreds of hours developing the policy document that was approved by the ccNSO Community and the Council.

It’s been over a year since the WG last met, and getting the WG back together might well prove challenging.  The mailing list is still alive however, and I have shared the Board’s correspondence with the mailing list.

Ideally, I’d like to get the consensus of the WG with a response to the Board’s questions/concerns, and then forward that to the Council for our consideration in developing our response to what the Board has asked of us.

Administratively, I would like the following ICANN Org staff available for the proposed calls:

Kimberly,

Bart,

Joke.

and Bernard Turcotte.

I am not certain of Bernard’s relationship with ICANN presently, but he has been instrumental in the ccNSO’s deliberation in all matters since (at least) the FoI, and was instrumental in the WG’s policy development.  We will need him for our discussions.

Any thoughts on this proposal as a way forward?

Best Regards,

//Stephen