Dear Subgroup Members .. As we still have some pending points and no scheduled calls for the subgroup, I thought to follow-up with you over email .. Here is a compilation of what I believe we still need to either confirm or discuss and agree: 1. Where do emerging technologies belong? (Tracy’s Point) .. I understand there was no objection to having them under “Emerging Topics” .. and I personally believe it’s implicit so I don’t think we need a separate bullet .. Thoughts? 2. In this sentence: “An emerging topic that is requested by the community, specifically one that does not involve policy considerations,” shall we propose to the CCG changing “policy considerations” to “policy development”, to make sure we’re not stepping into PDP territory and at the same time address Pat’s point that in discussing emerging topics policy considerations may need to be taken into account .. 3. There was a proposal by Anil on the CCG call to add “Board requested” under Emerging Topics, along with “Community Requested” and “ATR Requested”, any views on this proposal? 4. Any further input regarding “The number of on demand reviews per five-year cycle is limited to one” in light of the CCG discussions on whether to leave it as is or change it to reflect “one at a time” not necessarily throughout the five-year cycle? 5. I believe there are no objections, from the subgroup, on the thresholds proposed by Sohpie, 2 out of 7 SO/AC for a proposal to get discussed and 5 out of 7 to proceed. Appreciate your confirmations though we may still leave them in yellow for the CCG discussions. 6. Any objection to the addition of this bullet to the screening list “When the topic was last reviewed/assessed to ensure meaningful timing”? It was added after the subgroup call without discussion, so I thought to seek you explicit confirmation .. 7. The last pending issue is On-Demand Structural Reviews, which we will leave a placeholder for subject to the outcome of the CCG’s discussion tomorrow, Thurs. .. but please feel free to exchange views here if you wish .. Apologies for the long email .. Please let me know if I have overlooked, misinterpreted or have not been clear on any of the points .. Looking forward to your responses, here over email or in the google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iFB25pBT2JcZyWxNtJpUNg3N3W9p2xyB/edit>, in order to work with Alice on a clean version of our report .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Alice Jansen via Reviewsccg-subgroup-on-demand-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-on-demand-review@icann.org> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 11:12 AM To: reviewsccg-subgroup-on-demand-review@icann.org Subject: [External] [Reviewsccg-subgroup-on-demand-review] REVIEW - One-pager Importance: High Dear Subgroup Members, To finalize your subgroup conclusions for the plenary meeting discussion, please review the clean draft one-pager and share any additional comments/concerns/input you may have. Your feedback on the areas highlighted in yellow is also needed. Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iFB25pBT2JcZyWxNtJpUNg3N3W9p2xyB/edit The paper will need to be submitted to the full group on Monday in preparation for the plenary session. As a result, we would be grateful if you could make sure to share your input as soon as possible. Best regards Alice