**Sent on behalf of Osvaldo Novoa** Dear all, Enclosed is a draft proposal for the reviews, based on the draft purpose of reviews document, prepared by the chairs and sent for our consideration. This is the email exchange I had regarding this proposal. They present my personal opinion as member of the CCG and I'm open to discuss or comment them with whomever wants. You can all send your considerations to me or directly to the CCG. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ From: Osvaldo Novoa <osvaldo.j.novoa@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 11:06 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: Alice Jansen via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Reviewsccg] Draft proposal table Hi Chris, Regarding your questions: a) ‎ I think it is necessary for every organization to periodically analyze its structure to see if any change is needed, specially if the analysis is done in cooperation with people outside the organization. The phrase "it has always been like this and works" is a way to stagnation. Besides, if after ten years there is nothing to change, something is wrong. b) I think you would have to use the same mechanism as for other decisions taken by the SO/AC/NC/SG/C, whichever corresponds. I don't see the need for a special approval procedure. On 5. I do think that it is valuable to have an extraordinary review if it is considered necessary, just like this Review of Reviews. I don't think it is necessary to include it in the Bylaws. If an SO/AC considers that a special review is needed it can propose so to the Board and the Board can approve it even if it is not in the Bylaws. Hopes this answers your questions. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 7:07 AM To: Osvaldo Novoa <osvaldo.j.novoa@gmail.com> Cc: Alice Jansen via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Reviewsccg] Draft proposal table Thank you for this Osvaldo. Some questions for you based on your input:- on 3: a) The review should be mandatory and every XX years (10 being the suggested time frame currently). When you say mandatory do you mean that it should be mandated in the by-laws? If yes, how would you feel about the community (through an agreed process) having the ability to say that such a review is not necessary when it id due to happen? This has been suggested as a way of avoiding doing a review simply because the by-laws says we should do one. b) Recommendations can be approved or rejected by the SO/AC. Do you think each SO/AC can set up it's own mechanism for approving or rejecting or should that mechanism be mandated (for example, would the GNSO have to use its current voting structures to approve or disapprove?). on 5: Abandoning the idea of having a process to set up an ad hoc review would mean that the only way individual structural issues could be looked at would be in the 10 yearly structural review. Is the idea of, for example, being able to review the GSNO structure (at the GNSO request) as a specific community review outside of the once a decade structural review not something you think is valuable? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC9F1D.8EE0AFF0] On 13 Feb 2026, at 13:36, Osvaldo Novoa via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg@icann.org> wrote: Hello all, Regarding the proposed table I have the following comments: 1. Bucket A. I agree that this should all be included in the ATR, maintaining its actual objectives, and adding option 2 proposed. The scope should be established in the Bylaws, not variable. The review should be conducted by selected members of the SO/AC/NC with a Board representative. 1. CIP Assessment. I agree with the proposal. 1. Structural Review. It should be mandatory and periodical (every 10 years?); it should cover internal structures of existing SO/AC (perhaps not the GAC). The corresponding recommendations should be approved or rejected by the referenced SO/AC/SG/C but the rejection should be justified and published. The review would be initiated by the Board and could be advanced or delayed but not more than 2 years. The scoping should be detailed in the Bylaws. The Holistic Review proposed by ATRT3 would fulfil this role. 1. Review of Reviews. I don't think there is any need to stablish a Review of Reviews in the Bylaws, I think this should be a one time only event. If there is the need to repeat it, it would be an exceptional occasion as this one and the Board can order one again. 1. Ad Hoc Review. The same comment as for Review of Reviews. I think we should also consider in particular the Specific Reviews which I don't see where they are included in this proposal, SSR, RDS Review, and CCT. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo _______________________________________________ Reviewsccg mailing list -- reviewsccg@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-leave@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-leave@icann.org>