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-publis...> Draft ICANN FY27 Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publis...>, 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/repor...> issues [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/reviews/repor...> 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-e...>. 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-publis...> Draft ICANN FY27 Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-budget-fy2027-publis...> currently out for Public Comment (2026<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icann-fy2731-operating-fi...>). ICANN FY27-31 Strategic Objective 1<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icann-op-financial-plan-fy...> 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-publis...> (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/15exexyNWKcNo...> 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-xasa0ho5CDV...> 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-publis...>, 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-re...>). 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.