Dear ROR CCG team,
Please find enclosed response from ISPCP for bucket C.
Anil Kumar Jain
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Osvaldo Novoa <osvaldo.j.novoa(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 04:09
Subject: Re: BUCKET C
To: anil Jain <asdj1990(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Santanu Acharya CA <ca_santanu(a)live.in>
Thank you very much Anil.
Best.
Saludos,
Osvaldo Novoa
El 16 feb. 2026, a la(s) 13:58, anil Jain <asdj1990(a)gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Osvaldo/Santanu,
Please find enclosed response on Bucket C submitted to ROR CCG on behalf of
ISPCP.
Anil
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* anil Jain <asdj1990(a)gmail.com>
*Date:* 16 February 2026 at 10:02:41 PM IST
*To:* Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>
*Cc:* philippe.fouquart(a)orange.com
*Subject:* *BUCKET C*
Dear Alice,
Please find enclosed ISPCP response to Review of Reviews outreach. You are
requested to kindly share the same with ROR CCG leadership
*As an Observer I do not have access to membership email.*
*Thanks, *
*Anil*
*CC: Philippe, Chair ISPCP*
*Osvaldo, Member ROR CCG*
ISPCP Constituency Response to the Review of Reviews Cross-Community
Working Group (ROR CCG) on Bucket C: Structural/Organizational Reviews
Submitted by: ISPCP Constituency (Internet Service Providers and
Connectivity Providers), GNSO
Date: 16th February 2026
The ISPCP Constituency appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the
Review of Reviews Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) as it examines
Bucket C, which encompasses structural or organizational reviews within
ICANN. These reviews are essential for ensuring the ongoing effectiveness,
accountability, and adaptability of ICANN’s supporting organizations (SOs),
advisory committees (ACs), and other key structures. As representatives of
internet service providers and connectivity providers, we emphasize the
need for reviews that support a stable, secure, and resilient internet
ecosystem while minimizing disruptions to operational continuity.
Our response addresses the scope, factors, timelines, and integration of
structural reviews, drawing on the principles of efficiency, inclusivity,
and alignment with ICANN’s mission. We propose the following considerations
for Bucket C:
1. Factors to Include and Exclude in Structural Reviews
Structural reviews should focus on core elements that directly impact the
governance, decision-making, and operational effectiveness of ICANN’s
entities. Included factors could encompass:
• Top priorities
o Governance structures, in particular:
§ Structural deficiencies and inter-subpart dynamics: Identification of
shortcomings in the structure or in the interactions among its subparts
that cannot be effectively addressed through a Supporting Organization
(SO)–specific review.
§ Appropriateness and relevance of subpart placement: Assessment of
subparts whose primary interests, responsibilities, or impacts extend
beyond, or are misaligned with, the structure in which they are currently
situated, and whether they are relevant for the present and the future.
§ Adequacy of ecosystem representation: Consideration of whether the
current structure sufficiently represents relevant participants within the
Internet ecosystem, including identification of under-represented or
unrepresented stakeholders.
§ Overall structural coherence and effectiveness: Evaluation of whether
the structure, as designed, supports effective coordination,
accountability, and decision-making across its constituent parts.
o Associated board composition, and decision-making processes.
• Secondary priorities
o Resource allocation and financial sustainability.
o Alignment with ICANN’s bylaws, mission, and strategic objectives.
§ Stakeholder engagement mechanisms, including diversity, inclusivity, and
participation metrics.
o Performance against key performance indicators (KPIs) related to policy
development, advisory functions, and community support.
Excluded factors should avoid overlap with other review mechanisms to
prevent redundancy and review fatigue. These may include:
• Day-to-day operational details better suited for annual
operational reports or audits.
• Specific policy outcomes, which fall under policy development
processes (PDPs) or specific reviews (e.g., in Bucket A or B).
• Technical root server operations or IANA functions, unless
they directly intersect with organizational structure.
• Broader internet governance issues not core to ICANN’s remit,
to maintain focus and efficiency.
• Review of ICANN Paid manpower
By clearly delineating scope, structural reviews can remain targeted and
actionable.
2. Timelines for Structural Reviews
We recommend establishing clear, predictable timelines to ensure regular
assessment without overburdening the community. A standard cycle of every
8-10 years per reviewed entity could balance thoroughness with resource
constraints, allowing time for implementation of prior recommendations,
whilst the first review should happen as soon as possible.
Specific suggested timelines:
• Initiation: 2 months for scoping and team formation.
• Execution: 4-6 months for data collection, analysis, and
drafting.
• Finalization and Implementation: 4-6 months for public
comment, board approval, and initial action planning.
• First iteration starting asap
These phases should include milestones with community checkpoints to
enhance transparency.
3. Mandatory vs. Flexible Timelines
While a mandatory baseline schedule is necessary for accountability and
predictability, flexibility should be incorporated to address emergent
needs. Reviews could be advanced or delayed by up to 1-2 years based on
triggering events, such as:
• Significant organizational changes (e.g., bylaws amendments
or major restructurings).
• External pressures like regulatory shifts or global events
impacting ICANN’s operations.
• Community consensus via a formal petition process involving
at least two SOs/ACs.
This hybrid approach—mandatory with justified flexibility—ensures
responsiveness without undermining the review framework. Any deviation
should require board approval and public justification to maintain trust.
4. Incorporation of Results/Impact from Prior Structural Reviews
Structural reviews must build on previous ones to track progress and avoid
repeating efforts. Each review should mandatorily include:
• An assessment of the implementation status and measurable
impact of recommendations from the last review.
• Lessons learned, including successes, challenges, and
unintended consequences.
• Metrics to evaluate long-term effectiveness, such as improved
stakeholder satisfaction or enhanced decision-making efficiency.
This iterative approach promotes continuous improvement and accountability.
5. Integration of Outcomes from Strategic Plans, Ad Hoc Reviews, and Reports
To provide a holistic view, structural reviews should incorporate relevant
inputs from other ICANN processes:
• Strategic Plans: Alignment with ICANN’s multi-year strategic
objectives, including progress toward goals like diversity or digital
inclusion.
• Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs) or similar mechanisms:
Outcomes from targeted investigations, ensuring structural reviews address
any identified gaps.
These integrations should be selective, focusing on elements that inform
structural enhancements.
6. Consideration of Relations with External Organizations
Structural reviews should evaluate ICANN’s inter-organizational
relationships to strengthen global cooperation. This includes:
• Interactions with organizations such as the Internet Society
(ISOC), Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), or standards bodies (e.g.,
IETF), assessing synergies or overlaps.
• Opportunities for knowledge sharing or joint initiatives that
enhance ICANN’s role in the broader internet ecosystem.
Such considerations ensure ICANN remains adaptive in an interconnected
global environment.
In conclusion, the ISPCP supports a refined approach to Bucket C that
emphasizes efficiency, integration, and flexibility. We urge the ROR
CCG to prioritize community input in finalizing these elements and to
pilot any changes in a low-impact manner. We are available for further
discussion and look forward to collaborating on implementation.
Sent from my iPad
