Dear Irina, “Delegation. And redelegation” are excluded through the Bylaws, after an extensive discussion by the CWG IANA Transition and ccwg accountability ( WS1) and supported by the Council and ccTLD s oresent at the various metings when it was discussed in the 2014-2016 time frame. Hope this helps, Kind regards, Bart From: Irina Danelia <i.danelia@cctld.ru> Date: Thursday, 7 July 2022 at 10:47 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, I agree with the proposed text But I do not remember why it was decided that disputes relating ccTLD delegations and re-delegations should be excluded from ICANN’s Reconsideration Process as well as the Independent Review Process for Covered Actions. Where can I find any reference or explanation? I assume it was a part of ICANN ByLaws change during IANA transition Best regards, Irina From: Ccnso-council <> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, I am emailing you on behalf of Alejandra to seek your comments and input on the included draft letter to Samantha Eisner, ICANN legal. This letter is a response she raised to the Council via the ccNSO PDP3 WG on review mechanism. The question is whether (future) decisions under the proposed retirement policy should be excluded from the ICANN Independent review process (like matters pertaining to delegation and “re-delegations”. Specifically she asked: As there is specific reference in the Retirement Policy Recommendations to the ccPDP-RM in relation to two retirement-related issues, does the ccNSO (emphasis added) consider both retirement issues set out at 5.2 of the Retirement Policy Recommendations as matters relating to delegation and transfer sufficient to both be excluded from the ICANN Independent Review Process? As you will recall, Stephen, in his capacity of chair of the Review Mechanism WG, raised the issue of the question a few times on the Council call and, as you also will recall, Patricio raised this issue during his presentation to the Council on (16 June 2022) on the progress with respect to the Board consideration of the proposed retirement policy. The included draft intends to answer the direct question from Samantha, but will also provide some clarity from a ccNSO perspective on related matters, such as carve-out from the IRP of revocation, need to update the language in the Bylaws to align with the Framework interpretation and extend carve=out of retirement to Reconsideration (section 4.2 of the Bylaws). Next steps. If you have any questions or comments please provide them on the list over the next week (preferably no later than Monday 11 July 17.00 UTC. The document will then be updated, consolidating your comments, and re-circulated. Tomorrow (Tuesday) we will provide the draft also in Google doc format. Goal is to approve the letter at the next council call ( 21 July 2022), however if feasible Alejandra suggests to take an on-line decision before the meeting. Thank you on behalf of Alejandra, Kind regards, Bart