Hi all,

As an Observer, I would like to ask a question in the Tuesday meeting during Agenda Item 4.  The question has to do with the effect of GAC comment from the Mumbai Communique as shown below, especially as it relates to the language I have emphasized in bold.  Because this deals with a GAC comment, I am copying Manal.

Thank you,

Anne

"The GAC is still discussing the draft design proposal giving consideration to the GAC’s unique status in the ICANN Bylaws and existing Operating Principles. The GAC welcomes  the Cross Community Group (CCG) outreach and inclusiveness efforts, allowing active participation by observers and reaching out to members and chairs of past Review Teams, and welcomes the approach followed so far, maintaining successes of past reviews, building on work of  ATRT3 and being forward looking for sustainability.
The GAC will continue to participate in the CCG, with special interest in:
● How important reviews – such as the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) Review and the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review that are closely linked to the ICANN’s mission established in the Bylaws – will be accommodated in the refreshed proposal;
● How the overall cadence and workload will look like after compiling all reviews on one
timeline;
● How the final proposal will be driven by a functional approach, taking care that each
review has a distinct function and a clear added-value, be mindful of resources, and be
communicated in clear, plain language, enabling those unfamiliar with ICANN to understand the system of reviews."