- Inputonreviews - lists.icann.org

PIR Input
by Becky Burr Feb. 20, 2026

Feb. 20, 2026

Attached please find PIR’s input on bucket A reviews[https://res-2.df.onecdn.static.microsoft/files/fabric-cdn-prod_20251010.003/assets/item-types/16/docx.svg]PIR Comments for Submission to CCG on Review of Reviews 6 Feb 2026.docx<https://pirorg-my.sharepoint.com/personal/bburr_pir_org/Documents/PIR%20Com…> [Logo]<https://www.thenew.org/> Becky Burr | Senior Policy Advisor bburr(a)pir.org | http://www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Power your inspiration. Connect your world. [Image]

1 0

Community Input on ICANN Accountability, Transparency, Review Framework and Continuous Improvement Program
by John Gbadamosi Feb. 19, 2026

Feb. 19, 2026

Below are my inputs 1. The review framework should continue to serve as an important mechanism for strengthening accountability and transparency within ICANN. However, future reviews should place greater emphasis on measurable outcomes and demonstrated impact rather than repeating procedural assessments that already exist within ICANN’s planning and reporting structures. Reviews should clearly show how they contribute to improved organisational performance, enhanced community participation, and increased trust in the multistakeholder model. 2. The Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) should play a central role in the evolving review ecosystem. Independent validation mechanisms should be introduced to confirm that CIP outputs are evidence-based, implemented as intended, and capable of strengthening collaboration across Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Greater attention should also be given to tracking implementation and sharing good practices across community structures. 3. Initiation of reviews should reflect a balanced model in which the Board may act in consultation with the community, while meaningful community support thresholds are required to ensure legitimacy and relevance. Ad hoc reviews may remain an important tool for addressing emerging issues, provided clear criteria, defined scope, and resource considerations are established in advance. -- John Gbadamosi Programme Officer, Digital Rights Media Rights Agenda Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow Article 19, UK +2348099817296 john(a)mediarightsagenda.org @Samjohn70

1 0

RySG Input on Buckets A&B
by Elizabeth Bacon Feb. 18, 2026

Feb. 18, 2026

Hello All, Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment. As an Observer to this group, I understand this input may not be posted but we wanted to share with the group. On behalf or the RySG I offer the below input on the Bucket A and B proposals. I apologies for the tardiness of this response, I was out sick last week, and it delayed submission. Thank you, Beth Elizabeth Bacon | Chair, RySG RySG Input Executive Summary * The RySG encourages that ICANN provide sufficient resources in the FY27 Community and Engagement Budget to address and operationalize ICANN Reviews, and suggests examining resources that may be necessary (for example: evaluation of the impact of a COO or needs identified by the ROR work) in the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…> Draft ICANN FY27 Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…>, to drive successful implementation of reviews alongside the ICANN CEO, Board and Community. The RySG welcomes further community engagement on the sufficient resourcing required for this initiative. * The RySG supports the direction of the ROR-CCG “buckets” working documents and the CCG focuses on evaluating how ICANN performs against its Mission by focusing on concrete milestones and metrics and obligations in the Strategic Plan, Financial and Operating Plan, ICANN Bylaws, etc. Focus on clarifying the goal and purpose of the reviews and establishing a sustainable, predictable, and flexible process for reviews is essential. Problems and Solutions In examination of the problem statement for ICANN Reviews, and the circumstances that led to the problem, the RySG suggests constructive, practical, and forward-thinking solutions as input to the ROR-CCG. Problem: In the previous two cycles of (Organizational and Specific) ICANN Reviews, the community expressed [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/reviews/repo…> issues [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/reviews/repo…> with different Independent Examiners hired to perform the reviews, including their level of understanding of ICANN<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icanns-performance-08-05…>, its operations, the community, and the wider, rapidly developing ecosystem that it operates in. Solution: With a well-scoped review process, the need for an Independent Examiner may not exist. Given the issues expressed with Independent Examiners in the previous two cycles of ICANN Reviews, should it be deemed a necessary part of a review cycle going forward, the RySG suggests providing an ICANN Public Comment on the selection of Independent Examiner(s) for ICANN Review(s) in the ICANN Request for Proposal process<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/procurement-guidelines-21feb10-…>. Problem: To this end, the RySG highlights a disconnect between the level of resources required by the ICANN Reviews process, the ICANN FY26–30 Strategic Plan, and the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…> Draft ICANN FY27 Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…> currently out for Public Comment (2026<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icann-fy2731-operating-f…>). ICANN FY27-31 Strategic Objective 1<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-op-financial-plan-f…> lists both the Pilot Holistic Review (concluded), Continuous Improvement Program as Strategic Objectives, and “broad participation in a community dialogue on reviews” as a part of these objectives. In spite of their significance, “Reviews and Strategic Initiatives” account for the lowest percentage (%) of FY27 Community and Engagement budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…> (USD 63M). Review Teams are currently not allocated the same resources for collaborative work as other community teams. Solution: Provide sufficient resources in the FY27 Community and Engagement Budget to address ICANN Reviews. The RySG welcomes further community engagement on the sufficient resourcing required for this initiative. Problem: The execution of reviews is not keeping pace with the ecosystem, and concurrent reviews are leading to a backlog in the implementation of recommendations. Community efforts to develop the Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) Framework and the ongoing work of ROR-CCG have already stated the need for a lightweight, flexible approach, so ICANN can make meaningful improvements as the ecosystem evolves. Solution: The RySG notes that this problem is the crux of this work but, well handled, could also be the foundation for well-scoped, flexible reviews going forward. This problem is operational in nature. Even if a review is sound in scope and competency, it will ultimately be ineffective unless the operational problem is solved first. The RySG suggests the ROR-CCG address the operations of reviews first, as the scope of reviews is subject to change as ICANN evolves. We note that the approach of “buckets” is attempting this, specifically “Bucket A Reviews”. We support the CCG focus on evaluating how ICANN performs against its Mission by focusing on concrete milestones and metrics and obligations in the Strategic Plan, Financial and Operating Plan, ICANN Bylaws, etc. Focus on clarifying the goal and purpose of the reviews and establishing a sustainable, predictable, and flexible process for reviews is essential. Further: In its stress-testing exercise [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/15exexyNWKcN…> for the role of Strategic Plan in ICANN Reviews, the ROR-CCG determined that “The Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Annual Report documentation are essential in reflecting ICANN’s Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, but do not provide a ready-made template for a Review fulfilling the objectives of Bucket A.” In its engagements with the community [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-xasa0ho5CD…> on ICANN Reviews, the ROR-CCG received feedback that “Clarity of problem and clarity of solution are key.” The RySG observes that in the past, the ICANN org Executive function had staff with a scope dedicated to operational concerns. Accordingly, the responsibility to consider issues for potential review and operational impact should be covered by staff. In line with suggestions above to focus the foundation of reviews on existing documentation like ICANN Bylaws and the Operational and Financial Plan, as part of the development of these documents staff could evaluate issues and identify risks that could contribute to Community discussion and consideration of issues ripe for review. It will also be critical to incorporate SO/AC/SG/C consultation into the methodology for evaluating and selecting review topics. To this end, the RySG encourages that ICANN provide sufficient resources in the FY27 Community and Engagement Budget to address ICANN Reviews, and suggests examining resources that may be necessary (for example: evaluation of the impact of a COO or needs identified by the ROR work) in the Draft ICANN FY27 Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publi…>, to drive successful implementation of reviews alongside the ICANN CEO, Board and Community. The RySG welcomes further community engagement on the sufficient resourcing required for this initiative. With respect to the operations of Bucket B specifically, the RySG is supportive of the first Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) assessment cycle to initiate in a timely manner, in accordance with the published CIP Framework (2025<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cip-framework-02jul25-en.pdf>) and ICANN Board resolution (2025<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…>). The RySG once again thanks the ROR-CCG for their work on this important initiative, and for the opportunity to provide input. The RySG welcomes further engagement on the Review of Reviews.

1 0

Fwd: BUCKET C
by anil Jain Feb. 17, 2026

Feb. 17, 2026

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

1 0

BUCKET A REVIEWS INPUT -EDMUND BRAHENE-OBSERVER
by Pope 1 Feb. 10, 2026

Feb. 10, 2026

Hello, Please below is my review input on bucket A Purpose & Framing The document redefines what Bucket A Reviews are for: checking if ICANN is living up to its mission, commitments, and values. Instead of a long checklist of criteria, it ties reviews directly to ICANN’s official documents (like bylaws, strategic plans, codes of conduct). Feedback: This makes things clearer and less confusing, but it might leave out softer issues like ICANN’s culture or community trust. Methodology & Scope Reviews should stay focused on specific processes or events, not try to cover everything at once. They should also be flexible, adjusting to changing priorities in the community. Feedback: This is practical and avoids overwhelming scope, but being too narrow could mean missing bigger, long-term accountability problems. Use of Governing Documents Reviews will look at two sets of documents: Performance documents (what ICANN plans to do). Standards documents (how ICANN is supposed to behave). Feedback: This gives structure and balance, but relying only on existing documents could make it harder to address new or emerging issues. Topic Selection Suggested process: ICANN’s leadership groups propose topics → public comment → refinement → prioritization. Feedback: This ensures leaders are accountable, but it risks giving too much power to a small group and sidelining voices from less-resourced stakeholders. Resources & Budget Reviews should be funded through ICANN’s annual budget, with community input and oversight. The budget will decide which topics get reviewed and when. Feedback: This makes sense financially, but there’s a danger that budget limits could be used to avoid tough or sensitive reviews. Strengths Clearer purpose tied to official obligations. Reviews are focused and actionable. Budget and community involvement are built in. Flexibility to adapt over time. Weaknesses / Risks Leaving out non-documented obligations (like culture or trust) could weaken accountability. Leadership-driven topic selection may reduce inclusivity. Heavy reliance on existing documents risks missing gaps. No clear system for enforcing or following up on review recommendations. Budget constraints could undermine accountability. Recommendations Widen accountability: Include cultural and trust-related factors, even if not written down. Balance topic selection: Add independent or community-wide input alongside leadership. Protect critical reviews: Make sure important reviews can’t be dropped just because of budget limits. Ensure follow-up: Create clear systems to track and enforce review recommendations. Set metrics: Define success indicators like timeliness, inclusivity, and impact. Regards Edmund Brahene

1 0

Tucows Input on Review of Reviews
by Sarah Wyld Feb. 10, 2026

Feb. 10, 2026

Hello Review of Reviews CCG, Tucows appreciates the Cross Community Group (CCG)’s work through the ongoing Review of Reviews process. We have written the attached letter sharing our perspective and we look forward to your update at ICANN85. Thank you, -- *Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E* Pronouns: she/they Head, Policy & Privacy Tucows #MakingTheInternetBetter swyld(a)tucows.com

1 0

Review of Review draft proposal table
by Chris Disspain Feb. 6, 2026

Feb. 6, 2026

Hello All, As promised on our last call the co-chairs and the Org team have been working on pulling together all of the discussions to formulate a first draft set of ‘proposals’ for discussion. You can find the table here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bNrRxa2-BuO5SOjg9-mAfKmj8VhKydrBu3Kfq-J…> and it is also attached as a .pdf to this email. On our call next Tuesday we will delve further into Bucket A and if we have time also discuss the Table BUT please consider the Table and post comments and questions to this list. We will run out of time if we don’t move some of our discussions to the list. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456

3 2

FW: Comment from an observer
by McAuley, David Feb. 5, 2026

Feb. 5, 2026

Forwarding an email I mistakenly thought could be posted to the list. David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. From: McAuley, David Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 7:51 AM To: 'reviewsccg(a)icann.org' <reviewsccg(a)icann.org> Subject: Comment from an observer Dear co-chairs, members and fellow observers, As a CCG observer, I have noticed that the words 'trigger' or 'threshold', in the context of an ad hoc review, have been a bit challenging. It seems to me that concerns over definitions are creating the challenge. Why not just be descriptive and say something like: 'the time or point at which an X review will be launched.' Best wishes, David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc.

1 0

FW: [Reviewsccg] Re: Request for 2 lists of review
by Yvette Guigneaux Dec. 3, 2025

Dec. 3, 2025

Hi Co-Chairs/Staff – good day. Below is feedback to Avri’s email from Vanda/Observer to Reviews of Reviews/CCG – thanks. Hi Vanda – good day. Thank you for your input. I forwarded your email here to inputonreviews(a)icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> so it will be seen/reviewed. Just a reminder that Review of Reviews/CCG observers can read all correspondence on the Reviews main mailing list but do not have posting rights. You can however send any email with any feedback you would like to the inputonreviews(a)icann.org<mailto:inputonreviews@icann.org> mailing list. This email address goes to the Reviews/CCG support staff and the co-chairs. Apologies for any inconvenience, thank you. Yvette Guigneaux Strategic Initiatives Senior Coordinator | GDS ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)] From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 11:47 AM To: Avri Doria <doriavr(a)gmail.com>, avri doria <avri(a)doria.org> Cc: "reviewsccg(a)icann.org" <reviewsccg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Reviewsccg] Re: Request for 2 lists of review Some comments below regarding Avri's personal points, I as an observer. (in purple) From: Avri Doria via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 3 December 2025 at 16:06 To: avri doria <avri(a)doria.org> Cc: reviewsccg(a)icann.org <reviewsccg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Reviewsccg] Re: Request for 2 lists of review Hi, It struck me as terribly unfair and possibly counter productive, that I solicited such information without offering any of my own. We three co-chairs had decided we did not want to anticipate by going first, but now that does not look like the best of tactical approaches. So, I am jumping in with my opinion - personal - as a member not as a co-chair nor even as an ALAC appointee to this ccg. (without co-chair hat) Things I think we need on some regular cycle: * I think ATRT are essential to preservation and improvement of bottom up oversight of ICANN, the whole thing, by the community - and should continue on a manageable schedule that is kept rather strictly.. I think the template needs some tweaks, like approval by the SO/AC that appointed the review team at the end before Board or EC approval. but in general I think it is a good and useful review. Totally agree with Avri in her point regarding ATRT - in my view ATRT is an essencial mechanism for the multistage model, adding transparency and accountability to ICANN. I believe on flexibility - any strictly long term schedule will be there to be not followed. not pre-visible occurrences happen all the time * I think a structural review, that has yet to be defined, is an important review that we should have at least once every decade or two.. Even believing Holistic Review had proposed to occupy this role, whatever it will be, is relevant to have it. Things I think we do not need on a regular cycle * I think some, especially SSR, do not need to be on a regular cycle as a general wide scope review. SSR issues are taken care of in so many places within ICANN and are better suited to specifically defined single issue reviews when deemed necessary. As an activity it may need better coordination across ICANN, but a regular review cycle does not seem appropriate to me. I think SSAC & RSSAC are good places to work out such issues and to advise when a community review seems important. * * Agree. SAAC and RSSAC are capable to deal with it. * * Likewise with RDS, and its companion human rights: that is bigger than a single review and is a global, constant concern. I do believe that at times it may need for specific issues to be community reviewed, but do not think it is suited for cyclical periodic omnibus reviews. I have no strong view related to this point. Ok, (with co-chair hat back on) your turn please, & thanks avri On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 2:08 PM avri doria via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg(a)icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg@icann.org>> wrote: To ROR CCG Members At yesterday's co-chairs & staff meeting, we found ourselves guessing at which reviews the members of the ROR CCG think should be kept or initiated, and which they thought should not. My request of all CCG members, is please send the email list two sets of review names/descriptions. 1 - Those reviews that should be kept or initiated (including those needing to be improved) 2 - Those reviews that should not. If you can get this done before the end of next week that would be great. Should be a quick exercise. It will not in any way be a final list, but yet another conversation starter. Once we have collected and collated everyone's list, we will publish a ranked list and open it up to discussion in a meeting. Thanks avri _______________________________________________ Reviewsccg mailing list -- reviewsccg(a)icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-leave@icann.org>

1 0

Standards for new Review Process
by Anne ICANN Nov. 4, 2025

Nov. 4, 2025

Suggest this group consider recommending sequential reviews measuring performance against Bylaws Mission, Commitments, and Core Values. (See Article 1 of the Bylaws.) Don't try to do everything at once by one group. Separate into appropriate groups of topics and use different teams. Limit each team to a six month effort. We need to work faster and more efficiently in ICANN. Conducting the above reviews and getting recommendations adopted by the Board will go a long way toward Accountability. Transparency is a separate consideration as described by Jim Galvin on the call but please refer to the Bylaws as a method of measuring and self-reporting. Just don't try to to everything at once and cover all topics too broadly -it slows things down. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com

1 0