Dear Jonathan,
this is a follow-up email, six days later, on the eve of another
week-end, to update you that so far:
- I do not appear to have received a response from you addressing
any of the urgent points I have made in my email of 16 May 2026,
below.
- The official ICANN page of the Empowered Community on
https://www.icann.org/ec now has the "Standard Bylaws Amendment re
Transition Article on Reviews" Notice dated 11 May 2026 published
at:
https://www.icann.org/en/ec/standard-bylaws-amendment-re-transition-article-on-reviews
Is the ALAC going to issue an
EC Rejection Notice?
Kindest regards,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond
On 16/05/2026 21:12, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear
Jonathan,
I have listened to this week's OFB-WG ( https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NIHSQQ
) call recording since I was unable to make it, as I was in
transit at the time.
This message serves as the comments I would have made, had I
attended the call in person. I would like to put it on
record at the OFB WG and that it be noted at the next OFB-WG
meeting.
Presentation: Update
on “Transition Article on Reviews” -
Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN
Board | 3 May 2026 - Justine Chew - (15 mins)
In summary:
- cognisant that ICANN is
knowingly acting in contravention of its Bylaws by
suspending its Bylaw-mandated Reviews, the ICANN Board
proposed a "Bylaws Transition Article" in an attempt to
retroactively legitimise this suspension.
- In the Public
Consultation, the ALAC commented on this proposal and
raised significant concerns.
- Prior to this, the ALAC
had filed an Empowered Community Reconsideration
Petition (June 2025) calling for reinstatement of ATRT4.
- This Petition was
summarily dismissed by the other members of the
Empowered Community without explanation.
- The ALAC has since
participated in the ongoing Review of Reviews process.
After consulting the Community, the Board approved a new
Transition Article on 3 May 2026 (to be inserted as Article
27.6), triggering the Standard Bylaws Amendment process and
therefore the Empowered Community procedures. In
proceeding with this approval, the ICANN Board has also
ignored most, if not all of the ALAC Advice the ALAC
provided during the Public Consultation.
Listening to the OFB-WG call recording, several points
explained by Justine, have stood out that really shocked me.
Timelines and Consequences
The timelines adopted by the Board are deeply troubling:
- The 12‑month suspension
period begins only once the Bylaws amendment is formally
approved.
- This suspension can be
extended by up to another year if the Board accepts
Review of Reviews recommendations, or if 4 of 7 SOACs
request further delay.
- Only after this period
would the ATR (formerly ATRT) begin - within 90 days.
- The Consumer Trust Review
(CCTR) would not begin until two years after 500 strings
are delegated or two years (if >2000 applications are
received) after 25% of them are delegated.
The practical effect is stark:
- ATRT3 delivered its Final
Report in May 2020 - six years ago.
- The Pilot Holistic Review
began in May 2024 and was halted in May 2025 - one
year ago.
- One might have to wait up
to another 2 years + 3 months for another ATR to take
place, a process that will take 1 year to complete once
it starts - thus the next recommendations from an ATR
might not come before September 2029 - a nine‑year
gap between ATRT3 and ATR4.
- With the Board unwilling
to launch another Consumer Trust (CCTR) review at the
same time as ATR4, we'd need to wait until ATR4 is
finished for the CCTR to start. Thus the next CCTR
could be delayed until 2031, creating
a 13‑year gap since the last CCT
Review (2018).
This is an unacceptable erosion of ICANN’s
accountability mechanisms.
Review of Reviews CCG Discussion
ROR Review - Avri Doria and Jonathan Zuck- ALAC
representatives on the Reviews of Reviews CCG - (10 mins)
In this Agenda Item of the call, both you and Avri drew
attention to a critical issue:
ICANN ORG has still not implemented Board‑approved CCT
recommendations from 12 years ago, and
none of the proposed reforms to the review system address
this failure.
You said: "none of the things that we're doing to reform
the review system, which is changing the scope, changing
the makeup of the teams, all these suggestions that have
been put in there, none of them apply in any way to the
recommendations that came out of the CCT review".
You then added:
"Nor are any of the… has there been any explanation as to
why those things have not yet been implemented. So to me,
that's still… there's still a hole, somehow."
[...]
"And we've talked about trying to review this in the
future, as one of our reviews. How do we review ORG and
their role in these things? But, I think that we need to
do that as part of this review.
And I don't know how to go about making that happen."
and Avri replied:
"And that's difficult. You know, there's constant
pushback on the notion of reviewing ORG.
Constantly."
This should alarm everyone.
A system in which ICANN ORG fails to execute reviews,
the Board wilfully suspends Bylaw‑mandated
accountability mechanisms, and community advice is
ignored, is not functioning as intended.
Does this not immediately raise a red flag?
We have a Board that wilfully ignores ICANN Bylaws and
is unilaterally rewriting Bylaws "on the fly" to
something that suits them - and disregards formal ALAC
advice, preferring options that are further distancing
ICANN from its key accountability mechanisms and pushing
the whole concept of Reviews restarting further and
further into the future.
It is increasingly evident that ICANN’s resources (both
ORG and significant parts of the Community) are overwhelmingly
focused on launching the next round of gTLDs,
which many expect to generate substantial revenue. This
prioritisation is occurring at the expense of:
- Policy development
processes,
- Implementation work,
- Bylaw‑mandated
Reviews,
- Even At‑Large’s own
rotation of RALO General Assemblies and Global
At‑Large Summits.
Meanwhile, the ICANN‑funded
business-focussed Contracted Parties Summit continues
uninterrupted.
Had NTIA oversight still existed, these governance
failures would have triggered intervention long ago.
The Empowered Community was created precisely to replace
that oversight and ensure the Board remains accountable
to the Community - these changes being officially
integrated into the ICANN Bylaws on 27 May 2016.
One of these Rules is included in Article 25.1 of the
ICANN Bylaws: Amendments to the Standard Bylaws
This requires that the Empowered Community
should give its green light for a standard Bylaw
amendment to take place:
"25.1(d) Within
seven days after the Board's approval of a Standard
Bylaw Amendment ("Standard Bylaw Amendment
Approval"), the Secretary shall (i) provide
a Board Notice to the EC Administration and the
Decisional Participants, which Board Notice shall
contain the form of the approved amendment and the
Board's rationale for adopting such amendment, and
(ii) post the Board Notice, along with a copy of the
notification(s) sent to the EC Administration and the
Decisional Participants, on the Website. The steps
contemplated in Article 2 of Annex D shall then be
followed."
The Board approved the Standard Bylaw Amendment on 3
May 2026.
Under Bylaws Article 25.1(d), the Board was required to
notify the EC Administration and Decisional Participants
within seven days of approving the Bylaws amendment—by
10 May 2026. I have seen no such notification, nor any
posting on the EC website on https://www.icann.org/ec
If this notice has not been issued, this constitutes yet
another breach of the Bylaws, or at minimum an opaque
process inconsistent with ICANN’s transparency
obligations.
Next Steps
My proposed next step is clear:
According to the ICANN Bylaws 25.1(e):
"(e) A Standard
Bylaw Amendment shall become effective upon the
earliest to occur of the following:
[...]
(iii) (A) An
EC Rejection Notice is not timely delivered by the
EC Administration to the Secretary pursuant to and
in compliance with Section 2.4 of Annex D or (B) a
Rejection Process Termination Notice is delivered by
the EC Administration to the Secretary pursuant to
and in compliance with Section 2.4(c) of Annex D, in
which case the Standard Bylaw Amendment that is the
subject of the Standard Bylaw Amendment Approval
shall be in full force and effect as of the date
immediately following the expiration of the
Rejection Action Decision Period relating to such
Standard Bylaw Amendment and the effectiveness of
such Standard Bylaw Amendment shall not be subject
to further challenge by the EC pursuant to the EC's
rejection right as described in Article 2 of Annex
D.
(f) If an EC Rejection Notice is timely delivered by
the EC Administration to the Secretary pursuant to and
compliance with Section 2.4 of Annex D, the Standard
Bylaw Amendment contained in the Board Notice shall be
deemed to have been rejected by the EC. A Standard
Bylaw Amendment that has been rejected by the EC shall
be null and void and shall not become part of these
Bylaws, notwithstanding its approval by the Board."
Under Article 25.1(e)–(f), the Empowered Community
has the right to reject a Standard Bylaws Amendment.
If the ALAC believes the Board’s action undermines ICANN’s
accountability framework, then the ALAC must exercise
this right.
In view of all of the above, I propose that the
ALAC issue an EC Rejection Notice.
Rationale:
- The Board has wilfully
ignored ALAC advice aimed at strengthening
accountability.
- The proposed changes
unnecessarily prolong the suspension of Reviews.
- The CCTR restart is
pushed far into the future, despite Bylaw‑mandated
implementation of the previous CCTR.
- The Holistic Review -
ICANN’s only comprehensive mandated review of ORG in
over 20 years - has not been done.
- The Board’s actions
fail to comply with the requirements of the
accountability mechanisms the Empowered Community
was created to protect.
The EC Powers were designed
by the Community specifically to make sure that the
ICANN Board is subjected to Community Oversight
and the ALAC is only affirming this oversight.
Rejecting the amendment is not confrontational; it is a
legitimate, Bylaw‑mandated oversight function, a Right
that the ALAC has - and if this Community feels that
there is something seriously wrong with that is
happening at the moment, then it needs to act.
If the ALAC does not act when accountability is being
eroded, then what purpose does the Empowered Community
serve? What message does this send to the 6 billion
Internet end users out there?
In view of the serious consequences of inaction, the
question before us is simple and unavoidable: YES
or NO.
Kindest regards,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond
(own views)