Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits
Thank you for the link to the draft blog<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16QQETBUisUVi4fociQ9P_FCz8yJTr-Bk/edit>, 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.
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> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:35 PM To: David McAuley <dmcauley@verisign.com> Cc: 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://docs.google.com/document/d/16QQETBUisUVi4fociQ9P_FCz8yJTr-Bk/edit>, 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>
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>
Hello again, Manal. On thinking of this further, I remain of the view that adding the notion of ‘necessity’ into deferral considerations may prove unhelpful. I acknowledge you make a good point, as William Shakespeare observed (Richard II), ‘There is no virtue like necessity.’ But as I see deferrals, the real protection is the high threshold calculation and the increase in the threshold if a second deferral is to be considered. I think it is possible that if the concept of necessity is articulated then disadvantageously long and involved arguments may ensue as to whether a real ‘need’ has been established. The Initial draft uses the term ‘clearly justified’ (Para 1.6) which seems better suited here. (I acknowledge the same section also speaks of deferral being permitted ‘when necessary’ but I may make the same point in that draft.) So, with respect, I acknowledge your well-stated point but remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, however, I think the draft blog is very well done. 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>
Many thanks David for your follow-up .. I take your point and believe the term ‘clearly justified’, you proposed below, hits the right balance of having good justification a deferral so that it’s not an easy way out and at the same time keeping it as a feasible option if/when needed without the need for evaluating necessity in addition to meeting the community thresholds .. In short happy to proceed with ‘clearly justified’ as you proposed .. Kind Regards --Manal From: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 3:23 PM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>; chris.disspain@identity.digital Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org Subject: RE: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits Hello again, Manal. On thinking of this further, I remain of the view that adding the notion of ‘necessity’ into deferral considerations may prove unhelpful. I acknowledge you make a good point, as William Shakespeare observed (Richard II), ‘There is no virtue like necessity.’ But as I see deferrals, the real protection is the high threshold calculation and the increase in the threshold if a second deferral is to be considered. I think it is possible that if the concept of necessity is articulated then disadvantageously long and involved arguments may ensue as to whether a real ‘need’ has been established. The Initial draft uses the term ‘clearly justified’ (Para 1.6) which seems better suited here. (I acknowledge the same section also speaks of deferral being permitted ‘when necessary’ but I may make the same point in that draft.) So, with respect, I acknowledge your well-stated point but remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, however, I think the draft blog is very well done. Best wishes, David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:41 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto: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>
Yes, that works for me too. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance 
On 30 May 2026, at 09:32, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks David for your follow-up ..
I take your point and believe the term ‘clearly justified’, you proposed below, hits the right balance of having good justification a deferral so that it’s not an easy way out and at the same time keeping it as a feasible option if/when needed without the need for evaluating necessity in addition to meeting the community thresholds ..
In short happy to proceed with ‘clearly justified’ as you proposed ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 3:23 PM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org <mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> Subject: RE: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits
Hello again, Manal.
On thinking of this further, I remain of the view that adding the notion of ‘necessity’ into deferral considerations may prove unhelpful.
I acknowledge you make a good point, as William Shakespeare observed (Richard II), ‘There is no virtue like necessity.’
But as I see deferrals, the real protection is the high threshold calculation and the increase in the threshold if a second deferral is to be considered.
I think it is possible that if the concept of necessity is articulated then disadvantageously long and involved arguments may ensue as to whether a real ‘need’ has been established. The Initial draft uses the term ‘clearly justified’ (Para 1.6) which seems better suited here. (I acknowledge the same section also speaks of deferral being permitted ‘when necessary’ but I may make the same point in that draft.)
So, with respect, I acknowledge your well-stated point but remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, however, I think the draft blog is very well done.
Best wishes, David
David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc.
From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:41 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org <mailto: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>
Many thanks Chris for your confirmation .. Glad we have an agreed way forward .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 11:38 AM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Cc: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; inputonreviews@icann.org Subject: Re: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits Yes, that works for me too. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance [cid:image001.jpg@01DCF1D4.C17B8250] On 30 May 2026, at 09:32, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Many thanks David for your follow-up .. I take your point and believe the term ‘clearly justified’, you proposed below, hits the right balance of having good justification a deferral so that it’s not an easy way out and at the same time keeping it as a feasible option if/when needed without the need for evaluating necessity in addition to meeting the community thresholds .. In short happy to proceed with ‘clearly justified’ as you proposed .. Kind Regards --Manal From: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 3:23 PM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> Subject: RE: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits Hello again, Manal. On thinking of this further, I remain of the view that adding the notion of ‘necessity’ into deferral considerations may prove unhelpful. I acknowledge you make a good point, as William Shakespeare observed (Richard II), ‘There is no virtue like necessity.’ But as I see deferrals, the real protection is the high threshold calculation and the increase in the threshold if a second deferral is to be considered. I think it is possible that if the concept of necessity is articulated then disadvantageously long and involved arguments may ensue as to whether a real ‘need’ has been established. The Initial draft uses the term ‘clearly justified’ (Para 1.6) which seems better suited here. (I acknowledge the same section also speaks of deferral being permitted ‘when necessary’ but I may make the same point in that draft.) So, with respect, I acknowledge your well-stated point but remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, however, I think the draft blog is very well done. Best wishes, David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:41 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Cc: inputonreviews@icann.org<mailto: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>
Hi, Apologies for having taken the weekend off from ROR and thus coming into the conversation at the end and ruining the way forward. I am more inclined toward leaving the word as 'necessary'. I admit that 'necessary' is often defined as: "knowing it when you see it." I see 'justified' as meaning one knows how to spin it in a rationale and think it is a rather low bar for deferral, something that seems to have become a habit of late. I have suggested the use of "deemed necessary" in this blog, with a plan on coming back to a discussion in the CCG of how the RSC and community 'deem' something as necessary. While the blog should not wait for this, I suggest that we come to this issue in the initial part of our next meeting when we review the inputonreviews comments. Thanks, and again apologies for going invisible during the weekend discussion. avri On 6/1/2026 07:41, Manal Ismail via Inputonreviews wrote:
Many thanks Chris for your confirmation ..
Glad we have an agreed way forward ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Sent:* Monday, June 1, 2026 11:38 AM *To:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Cc:* McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; inputonreviews@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits
Yes, that works for me too.
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain
Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance
On 30 May 2026, at 09:32, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks David for your follow-up ..
I take your point and believe the term ‘clearly justified’, you proposed below, hits the right balance of having good justification a deferral so that it’s not an easy way out and at the same time keeping it as a feasible option if/when needed without the need for evaluating necessity in addition to meeting the community thresholds ..
In short happy to proceed with ‘clearly justified’ as you proposed ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:*McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> *Sent:*Friday, May 29, 2026 3:23 PM *To:*Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>;chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Cc:*inputonreviews@icann.org <mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> *Subject:*RE: [External] [Inputonreviews] Re: Draft blog for June 4th - suggested edits
Hello again, Manal.
On thinking of this further, I remain of the view that adding the notion of ‘necessity’ into deferral considerations may prove unhelpful.
I acknowledge you make a good point, as William Shakespeare observed (Richard II), ‘There is no virtue like necessity.’
But as I see deferrals, the real protection is the high threshold calculation and the increase in the threshold if a second deferral is to be considered.
I think it is possible that if the concept of necessity is articulated then disadvantageously long and involved arguments may ensue as to whether a real ‘need’ has been established. The Initial draft uses the term ‘clearly justified’ (Para 1.6) which seems better suited here. (I acknowledge the same section also speaks of deferral being permitted ‘when necessary’ but I may make the same point in that draft.)
So, with respect, I acknowledge your well-stated point but remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, however, I think the draft blog is very well done.
Best wishes,
David
David McAuley
Policy Director
Verisign, Inc.
*From:*Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> *Sent:*Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:41 PM *To:*Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> *Cc:*inputonreviews@icann.org <mailto: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 exampledue 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 draftblog <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 toinputonreviews-leave@icann.org <mailto:inputonreviews-leave@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Inputonreviews mailing list --inputonreviews@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toinputonreviews-leave@icann.org
participants (4)
-
avri doria -
Chris Disspain -
Manal Ismail -
McAuley, David