Dear ALAC Members: Attached you will find two documents, which respond to two related public consultations: “Proposals for the Systematization of Organisational Reviews” to be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-processes. "Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles" to be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-cycles. As you may recall, the original text (to be found in AL.ALAC/ST.0709/3) addressed only the first consultation. Revision 1, also attached, amends that text in order to add a paragraph at the bottom so that the response also applied to the second consultation, which was directly related to the first. The modification was done at the request of CLO by the Staff. The first consultation has closed; the second remains open until 9th August. The Chair has asked for a vote on the text, which will be setup shortly in order for the statement to be delivered before the close of the public comment window. For ease of review, here are the two versions: ORIGINAL: *Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultation on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes* Whilst the ALAC has not been able to review these proposals in depth due to the volume of public consultations currently underway, we wish to make one point. The entire current structure of independent reviews should be rethought, as it is increasingly clear that having multiple reviews conducted and implemented independently of one another is multiplying the complexity of the entire process, and does not sufficiently take into account the growing interdependencies between the different component parts of ICANN. REV1: *Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultations on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes, and Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles* Whilst the ALAC has not been able to review these proposals in depth due to the volume of public consultations currently underway, we wish to make the following points. The entire current structure of independent reviews should be rethought, as it is increasingly clear that having multiple reviews conducted and implemented independently of one another is multiplying the complexity of the entire process, and does not sufficiently take into account the growing interdependencies between the different component parts of ICANN. Accordingly, is our view that the Bylaw amendment proposed is not the right approach. It simply continues the present paradigm when what is needed is a more fundamental rethink.