Greetings Jordan, My responses are in italics. Best Regards, //Stephen Hi Stephen I think you have read an intent or a critical tone to my note that I did not anticipate or intend. Perhaps that is so. I am arguing for the Council’s right to deal with this request in a collective fashion, one that weaves our talents and perspectives together, in deciding what to do. This is my intent as well. I am certainly not questioning the Council’s right to deal with this request. My overarching goal with what I have done was simply to consult with the subject experts and bring that expertise back to the Council for our discussion of this matter. That isn’t inconsistent with the path we choose to take being the same as that you have embarked on. After all, being transparent, involving those who did the work, are self-evidently necessary as part of generating a response. Agreed. But, as two examples, it might have been that we could have agreed to give relevant ICANN staff a heads up before contacting a former contractor. Or, for us as a group to have been involved in deciding, before it happened, of sending the query to the working group prior to a Council discussion. Bernard is not a former contractor. He is currently contracted with ICANN. I thus did not see any issue with engaging with him on this matter, considering his incredible depth of knowledge as well as his being the principal scribe for the working group’s effort. I frankly did not see the need to consult with Council prior to contacting either Bernard or the WG writ large. Maybe that was an error. My initial thought was simply to alert the subject expects and solicit their thoughts on the Board’s concerns/questions. Those choices were precluded by you going ahead with the actions you’ve shared with us. I really do not see how I have boxed in the Council with respect to whatever path we take going forward from what I am accused of having done. None of these are an especially big deal, and I don’t have strong feelings about any aspect of this situation. But the point in my opinion is that it is the Council’s collective right to make these calls, especially when there is evident concern to have a convo, and where there is evident sensitivity about the whole situation. That’s why I think it’s regrettable that we haven’t had that chance. I do not see that my actions have removed any “chance.” My underlying concern here is that it appears that the Board is attempting to set precedent to alter/stipulate ccNSO developed policy by how they have handled the proposed Review Mechanism Policy. Section 10.1(a) of the Bylaws clearly states that “…the ccNSO is responsible for … developing and recommending to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains.” Annex B of the Bylaws describes the ccNSO Policy-Development Process, and we have followed that. We executed our authority under Section 10.1(a). It took 63 meetings over three years That’s a lot of volunteer hours, and also a lot of Staff hours. This proposed policy came at considerable cost, both in terms of community volunteer time and staff resources. The ccNSO then followed its procedures. We put it to a member vote and the members approved it. Council then directed the Issue Manager to prepare a report per the requirements of Annex B of the Bylaws, which the Council tossed to the Board in June 2023. At this point, it fell into the hands of the Board. Per Annex B, section 15 (“Board Report”): Section 15: 1. The Board shall meet to discuss the ccNSO Recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Issue Manager, taking into account procedures for Board consideration. 2. The Board shall adopt the ccNSO Recommendation unless by a vote of more than 66% of the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or of ICANN The emphasis on 15(a) is mine. It suggests a negation of the “shall” preceding it, as it gives the Board seemingly endless means to dither about or influence ccNSO developed policy. My question to you, and the Council writ large, is to what extent do we put up with this? Perhaps something for discussion on our upcoming call. [Between you and me, I think we really goofed back in the day and did not catch this bit of language when it was proposed.] I hope this additional context means that you feel less in need of taking serious exception to my ask of you. Agreed. Your response has been helpful. Look forward to discussing it all next week. Likewise. Cheers Jordan [SNIP]