Dear all,

First, my apologies for cross-posting.

The ALAC has timely filed a Rejection Action Petition regarding the proposed Standard Bylaw Amendment introducing a Transition Article on Specific Reviews (proposed Article 27.6), which would establish a framework governing the continued suspension and future timing of certain Specific Reviews, including ATRT4.  

Under Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, ALAC is now seeking support from at least one other Decisional Participant (ASO, ccNSO, GAC, or GNSO) by 8 June 2026 at 23:59 Pacific Time.

The ALAC Petition is attached for your reference.

Under the current ccNSO Rejection Action Guideline  ( https://ccnso-production.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/guideline-rejection-actions-procedure-24may18-en.pdf), the following process applies:

Upon receipt of a request from another Decisional Participant to support a Rejection Action Petition, the ccNSO Council and ccTLD community must be notified. This email serves as that notification.

Following receipt of the request, members of the ccTLD community may submit their views on whether the ccNSO should become a Supporting Decisional Participant in relation to the ALAC Rejection Action Petition.

Please share your views on whether the ccNSO should support the ALAC Petition by Thursday, 4 June 2026, 23:59 Pacific Time (UTC-7).

Following the close of the community feedback period, all comments received, if any, will be categorized and summarized. The summary will be circulated to the ccNSO Council.

The ccNSO Council will convene by teleconference on Sunday, 7 June 2026, at 12:30 UTC to determine whether the ccNSO should support the ALAC Rejection Action Petition. In reaching its decision, the Council will consider:

• The feedback, views, and input received from the ccTLD community, if any, and
• The importance of the matter to the ccTLD community, together with any other factors the Council considers relevant.

Should the ccNSO, or another Decisional Participant, support the ALAC Petition, the process will proceed to the next stage as defined in Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, including a Community Forum.

Additional Background

The proposed Bylaw amendment was subject to Public Comment. The ccNSO Council did not submit comments. At the time, the Council did not express a preference regarding whether the amendment should proceed and generally viewed the matter as secondary to the broader Review of Reviews work then underway.

Kind regards,

Sean Copeland

ccNSO Rejection Action Process Manager