Dear fellow Council members, We are pleased that Joke has been able to share with you the formal response to the ICANN Board's Ad-hoc Committee questions regarding the Review Mechanism policy. We recommend adoption by the Council of this response so that it may be transmitted to the ICANN Board. Sincerely, Jordan Carter co-chair Stephen Deerhake co-chair From: Joke Braeken via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Sent: Friday, 6 September 2024 12:59 AM To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [ccnso-council] Proposed ccNSO response to Board Caucus on ccPDP3-RM Dear Councillors, Please find enclosed the proposed ccNSO response to the Board Caucus regarding their questions about the draft ccPDP3-RM policy, and a proposed cover note. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KUmgDFb_WKR94U4KH5kkjurHXBlt0j7wFnI_S9gm... The Caucus oversees the policy implementation feasibility. A group of members of the ccPDP3-RM Working Group and Councillors prepared a draft response. The goal is to approve the responses and the cover note at the upcoming Council meeting. The cover note addresses the following: * Intro on how structure of responses * Invite the Caucus and staff to meet to discuss the requests and responses. This was suggested to avoid losing time sending letters back and forth. * A response on the foundational assumption made in the cover note which paraphrased asks to confirm that the CCRM Policy is limited to a procedural review. So, the substantive material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to a CCRM review. * Request for a formal clarification of scope of section 15 a of Annex B, what can the ccNSO expect to be included in Procedures for Board consideration. * Alert - Companionship of the implementation process - Link Guideline. Best regards, Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>