For OFBWG comment until 8 April 2026 | Draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews”
Dear all, The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026. Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function. Our timetable: 1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April Thank you, Justine
Dear Justine, thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance. In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in: /iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant./ This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this? Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine * *
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list --ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi All, I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail:Judith@jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
/iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant./
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine * *
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list --ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list --alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toalac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks for this Justine, I fully support the document (no surprise I know) and support zhe final tidy from redline, and transmission with OFB-WG support to the ALAC for endorsement before transmission to the PC. <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Tue, 7 Apr 2026, 08:44 Judith Hellerstein via OFB-WG, <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+200...> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Justine and all, Following the review of the Public Comment proceeding on the Standard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews, I have proposed the text below for consideration. This input focuses on the timing of the Specific Reviews (particularly the CCT Review) and emphasizes the need for a data governance and metrics framework to enable evidence-based evaluation of the Next Round outcomes. Proposed Text: The ALAC and At-Large Community emphasize that the proposed timing for the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review under s.27(c)(iv) must be considered in the broader context of Internet stability, trust, and accountability. We recommend that ICANN org explicitly reference the potential implications of review sequencing on end-user interests, particularly regarding the timely identification and mitigation of risks that may arise between review cycles. Furthermore, it is essential that a framework for data governance and metrics be established prior to the Next Round of gTLD delegations. This framework should ensure that all relevant and necessary datasets are available to support evidence-based evaluation of the Next Round outcomes, enabling the next CCT Review to make fully informed, transparent, and actionable recommendations. By adopting this approach, ICANN can strengthen predictability, enhance community confidence, and ensure that review outcomes meaningfully serve the global Internet end-user community. Thank you Best regards, Daniel Nanghaka Nanghaka Daniel Khauka. ICT & Digital Transformation Consultant | Knowledge Management & Innovation Specialist | Governance & Development Advisor Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- ᐧ On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 01:44, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Daniel, A couple of points as responded in the Googledoc: 1. We did not discuss data governance and metrics, only that the requisite data be available to support the next CCT Review. That should suffice, I think. 2. This goes into too much detail and I prefer to let the ATRT3 recommendation speak for itself. I have also now added a summary at the end that mentions, "value the impact of Specific Reviews on Internet stability, trust, and accountability from an end-user perspective". Thanks, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 07:53, DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Justine and all,
Following the review of the Public Comment proceeding on the Standard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews, I have proposed the text below for consideration. This input focuses on the timing of the Specific Reviews (particularly the CCT Review) and emphasizes the need for a data governance and metrics framework to enable evidence-based evaluation of the Next Round outcomes.
Proposed Text:
The ALAC and At-Large Community emphasize that the proposed timing for the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review under s.27(c)(iv) must be considered in the broader context of Internet stability, trust, and accountability. We recommend that ICANN org explicitly reference the potential implications of review sequencing on end-user interests, particularly regarding the timely identification and mitigation of risks that may arise between review cycles. Furthermore, it is essential that a framework for data governance and metrics be established prior to the Next Round of gTLD delegations. This framework should ensure that all relevant and necessary datasets are available to support evidence-based evaluation of the Next Round outcomes, enabling the next CCT Review to make fully informed, transparent, and actionable recommendations. By adopting this approach, ICANN can strengthen predictability, enhance community confidence, and ensure that review outcomes meaningfully serve the global Internet end-user community.
Thank you
Best regards, Daniel Nanghaka Nanghaka Daniel Khauka. ICT & Digital Transformation Consultant | Knowledge Management & Innovation Specialist | Governance & Development Advisor Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda)
----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * -----------------------------------------
ᐧ
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 01:44, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Olivier, Judith, My personal POV is:- 1. Assuming proposed s.27(b)(iii) is adopted down the line, then a decision to extend the pause period is arguably, not an "Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment" because it does not amend the said article (since the article is already provided for). EC only comes into action when amending an article or if the text in in s.27(b)(iii) (if adopted) were proposed to be amended. 2. The EC only has 5 participants, whereas all 7 SOACs were involved in the route we are taking to insert a pause period for Specific Reviews, so it is fair that the 7 SOACs be involved in making a decision whether to extend the pause period or not. Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 06:44, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I agree Justine, my understanding is the same that s.27(b)(iii) once adopted shouldn't require another EC intervention because then this is not a new amendment and just using the mechanism inside those boundaries. But It would be nice to leave a comment to highlight this point and get clarification rather we assume it ourselves because if are asking this question then other community members may ask as well.. (please rephrase if necessary). Left the comment in gdoc as well. *"We are agreeable to ................ We note that this approach differs from standard Empowered Community processes, and would benefit from additional clarity on its rationale to ensure transparency and consistency within ICANN’s governance framework."* Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 11:21, Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Olivier, Judith,
My personal POV is:-
1. Assuming proposed s.27(b)(iii) is adopted down the line, then a decision to extend the pause period is arguably, not an "Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment" because it does not amend the said article (since the article is already provided for). EC only comes into action when amending an article or if the text in in s.27(b)(iii) (if adopted) were proposed to be amended.
2. The EC only has 5 participants, whereas all 7 SOACs were involved in the route we are taking to insert a pause period for Specific Reviews, so it is fair that the 7 SOACs be involved in making a decision whether to extend the pause period or not.
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 06:44, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks, Aftab. I had the same afterthought since my last response. Happy to include a note to the effect of what you suggested. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD... Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 13:45, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree Justine, my understanding is the same that s.27(b)(iii) once adopted shouldn't require another EC intervention because then this is not a new amendment and just using the mechanism inside those boundaries. But It would be nice to leave a comment to highlight this point and get clarification rather we assume it ourselves because if are asking this question then other community members may ask as well..
(please rephrase if necessary). Left the comment in gdoc as well.
*"We are agreeable to ................ We note that this approach differs from standard Empowered Community processes, and would benefit from additional clarity on its rationale to ensure transparency and consistency within ICANN’s governance framework."*
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 11:21, Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Olivier, Judith,
My personal POV is:-
1. Assuming proposed s.27(b)(iii) is adopted down the line, then a decision to extend the pause period is arguably, not an "Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment" because it does not amend the said article (since the article is already provided for). EC only comes into action when amending an article or if the text in in s.27(b)(iii) (if adopted) were proposed to be amended.
2. The EC only has 5 participants, whereas all 7 SOACs were involved in the route we are taking to insert a pause period for Specific Reviews, so it is fair that the 7 SOACs be involved in making a decision whether to extend the pause period or not.
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 06:44, Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
*iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant.*
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 07/04/2026 03:21, Justine Chew wrote:
1. Assuming proposed s.27(b)(iii) is adopted down the line, then a decision to extend the pause period is arguably, not an "Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment" because it does not amend the said article (since the article is already provided for). EC only comes into action when amending an article or if the text in in s.27(b)(iii) (if adopted) were proposed to be amended.
The overall process relates to a "Standard Bylaws Amendment". You are right that if you make the case that this is not a "Bylaws Amendment" per-se, then it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Empowered Community Process, but IMHO this is playing with the process to evade a formal EC process. The result at the end of this exercise is indeed a Bylaws Amendment, even though "temporary" and I use quotes around "temporary" when I remember how many things starting as "temporary" end up lasting longer than expected.
2. The EC only has 5 participants, whereas all 7 SOACs were involved in the route we are taking to insert a pause period for Specific Reviews, so it is fair that the 7 SOACs be involved in making a decision whether to extend the pause period or not.
The big difference between "a majority of the 7" and "the Empowered Community" is that in the Empowered Community, one member can stop the whole process by objecting. In the "majority of the 7" there is no consequence relating to objections. Kindest regards, Olivier
+1 bad idea all around. Does seem to be yet another step by the Board to claim even more control and authority over the community. avri On 4/6/2026 18:44, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC wrote:
Hi All,
I agree with Olivier on this. I was wondering the same thing after I read the statement. I will not be on either Wednesday or Thursdays calls because of the Jewish holidays and will be off email Tuesday evening through Thursday evening because of the holiday
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail:Judith@jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 4/6/26 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
In relation to the "Proposed s.27(b)(iii) - Extension of the Pause Period by SOAC Majority", what is the rationale for allowing such a process that includes all 7 existing SO/ACs when tasks relating to Bylaw amendments are defined in the Bylaws as requiring action from the Empowered Community whereas according to Annex D, Section 1.4(a) and (b) require in:
/iii) The Approval Action relates to an Articles Amendment and is (A) supported by three or more Decisional Participants (including the Articles Amendment PDP Decisional Participant if the Board Notice included a PDP Articles Statement) and (B) not objected to by more than one Decisional Participant./
This is different to an SO/AC Majority and I do not understand why the Board is not following the Bylaws that relate to such decisions.Perhaps could you please shed the light on this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/04/2026 03:34, Justine Chew via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear all,
The draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD...> is available for final community comments until Wednesday, 8 April 2026. The finalized version will be presented a last time at the OFBWG call on Thursday, 9 April 2026.
Please comment directly in the DRAFT ALAC statement google doc, using the “comment” function.
Our timetable:
1. Reviewer(s): Initial Bullet Point(s) presentation and rationale for discussion – OFB call of Thursday 26 March *DONE* 2. Presentation and discussion of First Draft - OFB call of Thursday 2 April *DONE* 3. Community: Comment on Draft Statement - Monday 6 Apr - Wednesday 8 April 4. Final Draft Presentation - Thursday 9 April 5. ALAC: Vote on Final Statement – Friday 10 April - Monday 13 April 6. Staff: Submission of ALAC Statement – Monday 13 April
Thank you, Justine * *
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list --ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list --alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toalac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list --alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toalac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Olivier, On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 00:59, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
It’s a valid comment. I see this a bit differently, that the Transition Article is being developed through ICANN’s formal Bylaws amendment process, so I would view it as part of established governance rather than redefining obligations on the fly once triggered. Transition Article is necessary to provide a structured and time-bound mechanism to address known inefficiencies in the current review system. Bylaws are rigid but reality isn’t That said, I agree it’s important that this remains clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. A comment can be added simply. or something similar. "We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
Thanks, Aftab. I had the same afterthought since my last response. Happy to include a note to the effect of what you suggested. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OgDmhy6cTnyyPCVENaNqvTAkDf-28hxce_rLLcCD... Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 00:59, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft. Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article", which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement? I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
It’s a valid comment. I see this a bit differently, that the Transition Article is being developed through ICANN’s formal Bylaws amendment process, so I would view it as part of established governance rather than redefining obligations on the fly once triggered. Transition Article is necessary to provide a structured and time-bound mechanism to address known inefficiencies in the current review system. Bylaws are rigid but reality isn’t
That said, I agree it’s important that this remains clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure.
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards, Olivier
To be clear, I suggested language of " ....*We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessarily narrow and timebound measure to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows.*", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary. Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
Dear Justine, Olivier, and colleagues, I see value in both perspectives, but I am not happy with the wording. What about: “*We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a narrowly scoped and time-bound response to current challenges. However, such measures should remain exceptional and not set a precedent for future processes.*” Cheers, Pari On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:33 AM Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
To be clear, I suggested language of " ....*We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessarily narrow and timebound measure to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows.*", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary.
Kind regards, Justine
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* *Tel: * US :+1-202*-735-1415* (Office) US : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888>(Cell) Europe: +30-694-1607131 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888>(Cell) UK : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell)
Thanks Pari. I am also happy with that wording. Kindest regards, Olivier On 07/04/2026 11:46, Pari Esfandiari via OFB-WG wrote:
Dear Justine, Olivier, and colleagues,
I see value in both perspectives, but I am not happy with the wording.
What about: “*We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a narrowly scoped and time-bound response to current challenges. However, such measures should remain exceptional and not set a precedent for future processes.*”
Cheers, Pari
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:33 AM Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
To be clear, I suggested language of " ..../We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a _necessarily narrow and timebound measure_ to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows./", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary.
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Pari Esfandiari President /*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> */ */Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* *Tel: * US :+1-202_-735-1415_ (Office) US : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) Europe: +30-694-1607131 (Cell) UK : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list --ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi, Saying that something is not to be used as a precedent, rarely has any real effect. They are getting permission this time, and will get it next too. The community is slowly divesting itself of authority over Board actions. avri On 4/7/2026 05:46, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC wrote:
Dear Justine, Olivier, and colleagues,
I see value in both perspectives, but I am not happy with the wording.
What about: “*We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a narrowly scoped and time-bound response to current challenges. However, such measures should remain exceptional and not set a precedent for future processes.*”
Cheers, Pari
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:33 AM Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
To be clear, I suggested language of " ..../We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a _necessarily narrow and timebound measure_ to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows./", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary.
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Pari Esfandiari President /*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> */ */Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* *Tel: * US :+1-202_-735-1415_ (Office) US : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) Europe: +30-694-1607131 (Cell) UK : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list --alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toalac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online:http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
It's probably worth mentioning that the Board has no real interest in this. If not for our complaint about being in breach of the bylaws, Jose Cancio never would have suggested this compromise. I think the Board would have preferred to just be in breach a little longer... ________________________________ From: avri doria via ALAC <alac@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:44 AM To: alac@icann.org <alac@icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Re: [OFB-WG] Re: For OFBWG comment until 8 April 2026 | Draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” Hi, Saying that something is not to be used as a precedent, rarely has any real effect. They are getting permission this time, and will get it next too. The community is slowly divesting itself of authority over Board actions. avri On 4/7/2026 05:46, Pari Esfandiari via ALAC wrote: Dear Justine, Olivier, and colleagues, I see value in both perspectives, but I am not happy with the wording. What about: “We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a narrowly scoped and time-bound response to current challenges. However, such measures should remain exceptional and not set a precedent for future processes.” Cheers, Pari On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:33 AM Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg@icann.org>> wrote: To be clear, I suggested language of " ....We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessarily narrow and timebound measure to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows.", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary. Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: A comment can be added simply. or something similar. "We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. " I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: US :+1-202-735-1415 (Office) US : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) Europe: +30-694-1607131 (Cell) UK : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Much better. Thanks! Olivier On 07/04/2026 11:32, Justine Chew wrote:
To be clear, I suggested language of " ..../We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a _necessarily narrow and timebound measure_ to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows./", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary.
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 18:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Then its a different topic :) I am comfortable in framing it as a "pragmatic (if not necessary) and temporary measure", even if views may differ on whether it is strictly “necessary.”
Olivier
participants (9)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
avri doria -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Jonathan Zuck -
Judith Hellerstein -
Justine Chew -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Pari Esfandiari