Dear Alejandra,

I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of
the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming
Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional
information.
 
As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with
three objectives:
(i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA
Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide
recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO
Council when needed.
(ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the
proposed policy.
(iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue
in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations.

Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated
by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the
Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of
implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the
policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this
analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the
ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review
mechanism and identify any necessary modifications.
The additional information is requested using two types of questions:
- Requests for confirmation:  The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation
from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific
section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. 
- Requests for clarification:  The purpose of these requests is to seek further
information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from
the language of the CCRM Policy. 

After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that
requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM
Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that
decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision
is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each
aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine
whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize
total time).

The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into
columns as follows:
- Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43)
- Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report
- Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question
- Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for
confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green)
- Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments
 
Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to
respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience.
Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of
implementation feasibility.
  
Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Kindest regards,

Katrina Sataki,
On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM