From:
Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 11:47 AM
To: Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com>, avri doria <avri@doria.org>
Cc: "reviewsccg@icann.org" <reviewsccg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Reviewsccg] Re: Request for 2 lists of review
From:
Avri Doria via Reviewsccg <reviewsccg@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 3 December 2025 at 16:06
To: avri doria <avri@doria.org>
Cc: reviewsccg@icann.org <reviewsccg@icann.org>
Subject: [Reviewsccg] Re: Request for 2 lists of review
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.
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.
(with co-chair hat back on)
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@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
reviewsccg-leave@icann.org
