Hi Mary, Thank you for the quick reply. We’ll reach out to Rafik, with a cc to Stephanie, as you suggested. At this time, we don’t have any new requests for community groups. There is an ongoing thread of conversation we’re having with them relating to the composition of the review team for the IANA Naming Function Review. There are 2 issues with the composition of the review team that we’ve asked them to resolve, and they haven’t so we’ll be asking them to continue to work on these issues while we go to the Board for guidance. Given your suggestion below, I assume you’ll want us to continue to work directly with these community groups on this topic? Thanks, Trang From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 2:55 PM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org>, "community-requests@icann.org" <community-requests@icann.org> Cc: Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Community-Requests] FW: [Ext] objection regarding IFR Hi Trang – first of all, THANK YOU SO MUCH for using the new process ☺ We’re currently in the process of preparing the first issue of the new Digest out of this new Community Request process. As your last email was specific to the NCSG and Rafik, I think the easiest (and fastest) way to get you a response is for you to follow up directly with Rafik and perhaps also Stephanie Perrin (the NCSG Chair) for now. Are there other pending requests on this matter for which you are expecting responses or feedback from any other community group? Let me know if the above suggestion works for you and if you’d like us to help reach out to Rafik, Stephanie or anyone else. Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Community-Requests <community-requests-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 14:43 To: "community-requests@icann.org" <community-requests@icann.org> Subject: [Community-Requests] FW: [Ext] objection regarding IFR Dear Community Requests Team, The below request was sent to a representative of the NCSG prior to the institution of the Community Requests process. We have not received a response and would like to follow up. Could you please advise as to whether we should continue to correspond directly with Rafik, or if we should submit the follow-up to you? Thank you, Trang From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:50 PM To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: Amy Creamer <amy.creamer@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] objection regarding IFR Dear Rafik, Thank you for your email. I hope you are well. As clarification, the letter asked that the appointing organizations, NCSG being one, address the two remaining issues with the composition of the Review Team. Thanks for letting me know that the NCSG has concerns about the ccNSO interim appointment. For transparency, might it be possible for the NCSG to send a formal letter noting its objection and any rationale? It would also be great if the other appointing organizations are in copied so that they are aware of the NCSG’s objection. Thanks, Rafik! Trang From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:10 PM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] objection regarding IFR Hi Trang, I am sending this regarding the ccNSO proposal in IFR RT. I understand that NCSG members are strongly against the proposal and are for following the bylaws. I am not sure about the process for this and from letter it seems there was a deadline. There was misunderstanding at GNSO level if response was expected from council or the SG/C individually. Best Regards, Rafik