Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR couldbe triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier