Dear All As discussed on our last call, I believe that before we take any action we should all understand where we are in the process and next steps. So, where are we? It is my understanding that - We received the list of questions from the Board Caucus, not from the whole ICANN Board. The questions are asked to assess feasibility of implementation. Apparently the text is not clear enough i.e leaves room for interpretation. - From the 300+ days mentioned in Stephen’s email, the Caucus had to wait 165 for the public comment period and the GAC advice. This should have not come as a surprise (we learned this lesson with the retirement policy) and it will happen again with ccPDP4, since this is part of the board consideration process. Within this range of days, there are also general holiday periods and ICANN meetings. I know we want this to move as quickly as possible, but we also need to be mindful that it needs to follow a process and we should focus on quality rather than speed. - Stephen, you are receiving this information as a councilor, not as Chair of the ccPDP WG. By having forwarded this information to the WG mailing list you are preempting any discussion and decision by the Council on this matter. Going forward I suggest that we first have a council meeting (Tue 7.May at 20:00 UTC) to discuss and determine how we as Council want to handle the requests for clarification and interpretation. I see the following options: 1. ccPDP WG addresses the questions, outcome to be discussed and supported by Council (proposed by Stephen) 2. ccPDP WG members + council members who were not part of the ccPDP WG (fresh eyes on the text) addresses the questions, outcome to be discussed and supported by full Council 3. Council only (as we do have members of the ccPDP WG on the Council, and non-members) Final question, since the policy was approved by the members, should we consult with the ccNSO membership (for example @ICANN81 Istanbul)? Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 1:22 PM Nick Wenban-Smith via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:

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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.