Jordan, As much I respect you and your cumulative body of work on behalf of the multi-stakeholder community that is ICANN, I have to take serious exception to your comments below. I'll put aside my serious questions regarding Board actions with respect to this matter to date and their compliance with the Bylaws --I alluded to it in a prior email to Council, and my concerns will be forthcoming. I am thus at the "...push pause on any discussions or work, until we meet next week." appeal to me. Why? Why should I cease to elicit comments on the Board's queries to us from those within our Community who dedicated pro-bono time and effort to (at least) 63 meetings of the Review Mechanism working group? Should we suddenly cast their expertise and interest in this matter aside? Is there a need to cast Council's deliberations on the questions the Board posed to us regarding the Review Mechanism into the shade and not have them transparent, if not to the Community writ large, at least to those Community members that devoted hours and hours of their time to producing said policy, adopted by the Council as well as the Community? I fail to see why the effect of my actions "...has been to preclude some choices we could have made about how to handle this issue..." Please educate me on this. My intent has been to simply gather thoughts about the Board's concerns from those who worked on the policy development, and try to get those thoughts captured in the Board's document to us for the upcoming Council's deliberation about this matter. Frankly, it never occurred to me that pulling together this information would be so controversial. I am thus somewhat taken aback for the vilification this effort has brought down on me. Best regards, //Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 at 16:55 To: "ccnso-Council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] [EXTERNAL] - Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Hi all Stephen, may I ask that you desist from involving non-Council members in this matter until the Council has determined how to proceed? Since you have already shared the document widely beyond the Council, I would simply ask that you push pause on any discussions or work, until we meet next week. The effect of your actions has been to preclude some choices we could have made about how to handle this issue, and I think that is regrettable. Cheers Jordan From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:11 AM To: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [ccnso-council] Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Greetings, A quick update: Bernard Turcotte and I are jointly working on replies to the Board’s document seeking clarification/confirmation that Alejandra circulated to us last week. I expect we will have something to share with the Council by the end of the week. Best Regards, //Stephen

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]