- Inputonreviews - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board feedback on Refined Outline
by Karen Lentz May 18, 2026

May 18, 2026

Dear Review of Reviews Cross Community Group. The input document attached is submitted on behalf of CCG members James Galvin and Leon Sanchez. Best regards, Karen Lentz ICANN

1 0

Org Input to Review of Reviews - May 2026
by Russ Weinstein May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026

Dear Co-Chairs and CCG Colleagues Please find the attached ICANN org input into the CCG based on the request to each of the nominating groups. If you have any questions, we are ready to engage. Best Russ & Theresa

1 0

IPC Comment on the Refined Proposal on Reviews
by Margaret Milam May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026

Dear All, The IPC is pleased to submit its perspective on the Refined Reviews Proposal for your consideration. All the best, Margie Milam IPC Policy Coordinator

1 0

RySG feedback on the Refined Outline of Suggested Reviews System
by Wim Degezelle May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026

Dear All, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please find attached the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) feedback on the Refined Outline of Suggested Reviews System (18 April 2026). Kind Regards Wim Degezelle RySG drafting support

1 0

NCSG input on Review of Reviews l Refined outline
by Rafik Dammak May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026

Hi, I am sending on behalf of NCSG the input in refined outline. Please find it attached to this email. Best regards, Rafik

1 0

Bucket A subgroup straw-being comments
by McAuley, David April 1, 2026

April 1, 2026

Thank you, Chris, Karen, and Alice. I have a few comments as follow: It would probably be useful to add to the Scoping Group the co-chairs of the immediately preceding ATR. With respect to 1. Slate of Topics, I think whether the SO/AC internally requests a rationale from their team is up to them but what they end up with after their deliberations should have a rationale when they bring it to the Scoping Group. Maybe the final two sentences could be reordered to make that clearer. Question - should we ask the SO/AC leaders to rank their topics for priority? Cheers, David McAuley (Observer)

1 0

Considerations on reviews
by Osvaldo Novoa March 16, 2026

March 16, 2026

Dear all, These considerations might seem trivial or too evident to make them but I thought that they might clarify my opinion regarding periodical reviews. While in Mumbai and hearing comments regarding the reviews, and in particular de discussion on periodical reviews and on demand reviews, I started thinking on the objectives of a review. Why do we review? A review of a structure, an organization or a process it’s not necessarily to change it. A review allows you to verify that what you are reviewing is functioning as desired, fit for purpose, that you are obtaining the results as designed and if there is a way to improve it. Of course if you detect a problem, being that something is not working as it should or the results are not what was expected, then a review may be needed to detect the causes of the problem. It is preferable to solve any problem that might arise before they happen, this is the reason why I think that the reviews should be, in general, periodical and not on demand. An on demand review is required when a problem or an issue is detected, a periodical review may allow you to detect the problem or the issue before it happens and prevent it from happening. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa

1 0

some ideas for RoR
by jorge.cancio＠bakom.admin.ch March 12, 2026

March 12, 2026

Dear colleagues Just in case this fits in your discussions, here are some ideas I shared in the chat during the RoR session: * It would be great if it is checked that the process(es) of the reviews is (are) consistent with the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, especially their "process steps". The SPMG were recently recognized by the UNGA in para 94 of the WSIS+20 Outcome Document. More info: https://netmundial.br/netmundial-10-multistakeholder-statement-strengthenin… * A main principle to avoid duplications, overlaps and proliferation of reviews is the functional approach: forms follows function, hence if the scope and function of each review is neatly defined, the risk of duplication/overlap is minimized. This means scrutinizing all reviews, also existing reviews, to make sure no duplications/overlaps exist. * On the triggering of so called "on demand" reviews: here I'm a bit unsure to what extent important existing reviews, such as CCT, are covered. Anyways, it is worth considering not only "positive agreement" triggers, i.e. when a number of SOAC consider a review is due it is started, but also "default triggers unless negative consensus" models, where specific important reviews are automatically triggered, unless SOAC agree that the review is not needed, e.g. because the last one is still valid etc. A "negative agreement" approach is stronger, when you need to avoid collusion or capture, so it is especially useful for reviews that might be thorny for one or two SOACs... which would need to convince the rest about *not* needing a review... Kindly Jorge GAC Rep Switzerland

1 0

RrSG Governance Team Input and Comments
by Prudence Malinki March 11, 2026

March 11, 2026

Hello everyone, Please find attached input and comments from the RrSG Governance Team on the RoR draft proposal. Many thanks, Prudence Malinki Head of Industry Relations, Markmonitor [cid:image001.png@01DCB18E.1B6357C0]

1 0

Fwd: ISPCP input to Review of Reviews Cross-Community Working Group (RoR CCWG)
by Osvaldo Novoa March 5, 2026

March 5, 2026

Please find enclosed ISPCP’s considerations related to a structural review of ICANN. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa

1 0