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@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@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@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 Some comments below regarding Avri's personal points, I as an observer. (in purple) 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 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@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@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-leave@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-leave@icann.org>