Thank you, Manal. Let me (as an observer to the CCG) think about this overnight. I see your point. But I have come away from the discussions thinking that a deferral may be made in circumstances of some community stress that may not arise to the level of ‘need’ – a concept that could lead to protracted argument. I am working my way through the Initial Draft Report that Alice sent (where there are a number of references to ‘need’ in respect to deferrals). That might help me think this through. I will reply again tomorrow. In the meantime, thank you for your very helpful insight. Best wishes David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:41 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good catch David regarding ‘exceptional circumstances’ .. We have already agreed to change it and already did change it in the refined proposal .. Regarding ‘where necessary’, I feel it’s important to leave it .. There has to be a necessity to defer a review .. The ‘practical feasibility’ is just one example of what the deferral cause may be .. If I recall correctly, ‘practical feasibility’ is meant to refer to ‘relevant ongoing activities’ that we need to wait for their completion .. That said I propose re-drafting as follows: “The start time of the two mandatory reviews, ATR and the Structural Review, may be deferred (subject to community approval) where necessary, for example due to resource constraints, capacity limitations, or where practical feasibility is affected. There are measures to avoid continual deferral.” Thoughts ? Kind Regards --Manal From: Chris Disspain via Inputonreviews <inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:35 PM To: David McAuley <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> Subject: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits Thanks you David. I agree. Cheers, CD On 28 May 2026, at 17:28, McAuley, David via Inputonreviews <inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you for the link to the draft blog<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_Ydp7PfK85thQ6Nx1YwaUxqRVkQoQc6Xn8o8iR6QBFmZXl...>, Alice. I have a couple of edits to suggest. First, under the first Principle it says ODRs will be in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Maybe better to say ‘unforeseen circumstances’ – the ODR being contingent on high thresholds and wide interest is made explicit in the next bullet point in the draft. And second, under the second Principle maybe the phrase ‘where necessary’ about deferrals should be deleted as not needed – it might even conflict with the notion of ‘practical feasibility’ later in the same sentence. Thanks again and best wishes, David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. _______________________________________________ Inputonreviews mailing list -- inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to inputonreviews-leave@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews-leave@icann.org>