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 could be
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.