ICANN Board Bylaws Amendments and matters relating to the Review of Reviews
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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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)
Olivier, Although I do not disagree with your overall message, I do note that you have several references to the Board not following ALAC Advice. The Board is not bound to follow ALAC Advice, but they are bound to consider it and explain why they are not following it in a timely manner. Specifically, as per ICANN Bylaws 12.3 *"The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.". *This bylaw clause was added in response to efforts made by you and me (and others) on ATRT2. Alan On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 1:13 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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) _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Alan, thank you for your kind follow-up. This is exactly another problem and thank you for pointing it out. Where is the response from the Board? A few years ago, when Steve Crocker was the Board Chair, the Board, in response to criticism from the Community, worked with Staff to set-up a set of pages to track the Advice it received from Advisory Committees, in full knowledge that this Advice has to be treated particularly diligently after receiving criticism that some Advice had fallen between the (virtual) floor boards. But of course, that was under Steve Crocker. With successive Chairs, the system gradually fell into disrepair to end up like this: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/BA/overview When I raised the alarm perhaps as far back as a few years ago (apologies, I do not remember exactly when), I referred to a discussion with David Olive whereas ICANN was taking this very seriously. Quoting David Olive's email from 15 Sept 2021: /"As you may be aware, the ICANN Board has started a process to explore possible process improvements for the Board when addressing Advice from Advisory Committees, in particular the way in which the ICANN Board receives, considers and accepts (or not ) Advice. The objective of these improvements is to further enhance:/ // 1. /Transparency around how decisions are taken by the ICANN Board;/ 2. /Predictability of the process for getting to a Board decision, and;/ 3. /Implementability of Advice provided. / // /In discussions with the ICANN Board, several possible improvements were identified, including: / // * /Agree on and add further detail to the Board’s process phases and descriptions (see https://features.icann.org/board-advice)/ * /Have a standing agenda item during Board-AC bilateral meetings during ICANN meetings to discuss status of Advice consideration./ * /Develop a template, similar to the Board’s score card, that would document the Board’s consideration of Advice."/ So why does all of this appear to have gone to waste? Replacing the original intent is a set of At-Large maintained pages which is a shadow of the original project and which itself is out of date: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/BA/pages/97953057/QUARTERL... It is about time that one of the ICANN Communities does its job and call the Board on its multiple failings to follow the ICANN Bylaws. The ALAC has a chance to do that now. Kindest regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond On 16/05/2026 22:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Olivier, Although I do not disagree with your overall message, I do note that you have several references to the Board not following ALAC Advice. The Board is not bound to follow ALAC Advice, but they are bound to consider it and explain why they are not following it in a timely manner.
Specifically, as per ICANN Bylaws 12.3 /"The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.". /This bylaw clause was added in response to efforts made by you and me (and others) on ATRT2.
Alan
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 1:13 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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) _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
To be clear, my comment was to ensure that if we complain, we complain about the right thing (not that they did not follow our advice, but that they did not respond properly to formal advice). The Board and staff DID implement an ALAC Advice register. I know because I have been called upon to comment on their responses. I cannot speak to (in the cases you cite) whether: - we actually labelled it as ADVICE - it was duly logged in the register - it has been followed up as necessary. Alan On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 10:55 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for your kind follow-up. This is exactly another problem and thank you for pointing it out. Where is the response from the Board?
A few years ago, when Steve Crocker was the Board Chair, the Board, in response to criticism from the Community, worked with Staff to set-up a set of pages to track the Advice it received from Advisory Committees, in full knowledge that this Advice has to be treated particularly diligently after receiving criticism that some Advice had fallen between the (virtual) floor boards.
But of course, that was under Steve Crocker. With successive Chairs, the system gradually fell into disrepair to end up like this: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/BA/overview
When I raised the alarm perhaps as far back as a few years ago (apologies, I do not remember exactly when), I referred to a discussion with David Olive whereas ICANN was taking this very seriously.
Quoting David Olive's email from 15 Sept 2021:
*"As you may be aware, the ICANN Board has started a process to explore possible process improvements for the Board when addressing Advice from Advisory Committees, in particular the way in which the ICANN Board receives, considers and accepts (or not ) Advice. The objective of these improvements is to further enhance:*
1. *Transparency around how decisions are taken by the ICANN Board;* 2. *Predictability of the process for getting to a Board decision, and;* 3. *Implementability of Advice provided. *
*In discussions with the ICANN Board, several possible improvements were identified, including: *
- *Agree on and add further detail to the Board’s process phases and descriptions (see https://features.icann.org/board-advice <https://features.icann.org/board-advice>)* - *Have a standing agenda item during Board-AC bilateral meetings during ICANN meetings to discuss status of Advice consideration.* - *Develop a template, similar to the Board’s score card, that would document the Board’s consideration of Advice."*
So why does all of this appear to have gone to waste?
Replacing the original intent is a set of At-Large maintained pages which is a shadow of the original project and which itself is out of date: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/BA/pages/97953057/QUARTERL...
It is about time that one of the ICANN Communities does its job and call the Board on its multiple failings to follow the ICANN Bylaws. The ALAC has a chance to do that now.
Kindest regards,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond
On 16/05/2026 22:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Olivier, Although I do not disagree with your overall message, I do note that you have several references to the Board not following ALAC Advice. The Board is not bound to follow ALAC Advice, but they are bound to consider it and explain why they are not following it in a timely manner.
Specifically, as per ICANN Bylaws 12.3 *"The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.". *This bylaw clause was added in response to efforts made by you and me (and others) on ATRT2.
Alan
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 1:13 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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) _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
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-... *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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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)
I am new member to the OFB-WG and I recognize that I have not been a part of past processes and meetings where concerns about some Board activity were raised. However, I am aware of these concerns and have been following Olivier's emails. I think it is important for ALAC members to meet urgently to discuss this issue and Olivier's proposal for moving forward. I belive that making intentional decisions is important. On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:03 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
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-...
*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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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)
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Olivier, I apologize for my silence. I was waiting on two things, a temperature of this list about your thoughts as well as any indication I could get help from there other EC members. I don’t have an innate desire to make another symbolic filing, honestly, and would rather keep seeing the drum inside the RoR to get what consideration we are able. We are in a perfect storm of agendas and apathy that will amount to a similar disregard as experienced on our previous EC endeavor. Things of note. We didn’t file advice on this topic, merely responded to a call for public comments. As such the Board doesn’t carry the same burden of consideration and justification. Once again, our voice was the sole voice but at least we have our opinions on the record. As for the substance of your concerns, it is, indeed unfortunate that it will take a while to see another ATR, if the RoR is not accepted. That said, I don’t see a universe in which it isn’t. The amount of push back against the forward momentum of the RoR has been minimal to non-existent. The system is wired to give the RoR every chance of succeeding so that the caveats of the bylaw never come into play. It is my considered opinion that we are wasting our time try to fix those caveats. On the issue of the CCT, it’s been generally acknowledged that the first one happened too quickly and delaying it was, in fact, one of the recommendations of ATRT3. Honestly, I’m not convinced we should do one at all given our justification for a new round THIS time was expanding the registry pool through IDNs and applicants from underserved regions. THAT’S what should be reviewed, this time around, no? I suppose a CCTRT could include that in their review but doing a new competition analysis probably isn’t worth it given we still know nothing about the market. So, I bow to the majority here but I think rejecting the bylaw amendment is a fool’s errand and won’t accomplish anything, even symbolically. Happy to discuss further, of course. I’m only one vote. Jonathan P.S. we were informed of EC issues by the 10th and I’m finding out it might have been my responsibility to circulate them to a wider audience that they all seemed pretty procedural, other than the bylaw amendment and could be put up for a pro forma vote by the ALAC. JZ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Friday, May 22, 2026 at 1:02 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: ICANN Board Bylaws Amendments and matters relating to the Review of Reviews 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-... 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<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> - 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)
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention. Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change; - annoy some people; - cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and - cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles. The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives. I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this. Alan On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Zuck via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Olivier, I apologize for my silence. I was waiting on two things, a temperature of this list about your thoughts as well as any indication I could get help from there other EC members. I don’t have an innate desire to make another symbolic filing, honestly, and would rather keep seeing the drum inside the RoR to get what consideration we are able. We are in a perfect storm of agendas and apathy that will amount to a similar disregard as experienced on our previous EC endeavor.
Things of note. We didn’t file advice on this topic, merely responded to a call for public comments. As such the Board doesn’t carry the same burden of consideration and justification. Once again, our voice was the sole voice but at least we have our opinions on the record.
As for the substance of your concerns, it is, indeed unfortunate that it will take a while to see another ATR, if the RoR is not accepted. That said, I don’t see a universe in which it isn’t. The amount of push back against the forward momentum of the RoR has been minimal to non-existent. The system is wired to give the RoR every chance of succeeding so that the caveats of the bylaw never come into play. It is my considered opinion that we are wasting our time try to fix those caveats.
On the issue of the CCT, it’s been generally acknowledged that the first one happened too quickly and delaying it was, in fact, one of the recommendations of ATRT3. Honestly, I’m not convinced we should do one at all given our justification for a new round THIS time was expanding the registry pool through IDNs and applicants from underserved regions. THAT’S what should be reviewed, this time around, no? I suppose a CCTRT could include that in their review but doing a new competition analysis probably isn’t worth it given we still know nothing about the market.
So, I bow to the majority here but I think rejecting the bylaw amendment is a fool’s errand and won’t accomplish anything, even symbolically. Happy to discuss further, of course. I’m only one vote. Jonathan
P.S. we were informed of EC issues by the 10th and I’m finding out it might have been my responsibility to circulate them to a wider audience that they all seemed pretty procedural, other than the bylaw amendment and could be put up for a pro forma vote by the ALAC. JZ
*From: *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date: *Friday, May 22, 2026 at 1:02 PM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: ICANN Board Bylaws Amendments and matters relating to the Review of Reviews
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-...
*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* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-03-05-2026-en#section2.b>* - 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)
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I wonder whether, regardless of the position eventually taken on the amendment, it might also be useful to consider some kind of Advice or statement more focused on how all of this will be followed through during the transition. I think it could perhaps be useful to look at this in three stages: - first, in the Advice, setting out some clear and reasonable expectations; for example, what ALAC would expect regarding the restart of ATR and other pending reviews, what level of visibility should exist around implementation and pending recommendations, and how the community is supposed to assess over time whether these changes are actually working as intended; - then, continuing to monitor whether those expectations are actually being met; perhaps using the updates, milestones and existing spaces already available to periodically review how all of this is progressing in practice; - and, if further delays or major timeline changes arise later on, at least there would already be a clear reference point regarding the expectations and commitments originally outlined during this transition. I think something along those lines could also help maintain greater visibility into how these accountability-related issues evolve over the coming years. Just sharing the thought. Eunice El vie, 22 de may de 2026, 20:34, Alan Greenberg via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> escribió:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change; - annoy some people; - cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and - cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
Alan
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Zuck via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Olivier, I apologize for my silence. I was waiting on two things, a temperature of this list about your thoughts as well as any indication I could get help from there other EC members. I don’t have an innate desire to make another symbolic filing, honestly, and would rather keep seeing the drum inside the RoR to get what consideration we are able. We are in a perfect storm of agendas and apathy that will amount to a similar disregard as experienced on our previous EC endeavor.
Things of note. We didn’t file advice on this topic, merely responded to a call for public comments. As such the Board doesn’t carry the same burden of consideration and justification. Once again, our voice was the sole voice but at least we have our opinions on the record.
As for the substance of your concerns, it is, indeed unfortunate that it will take a while to see another ATR, if the RoR is not accepted. That said, I don’t see a universe in which it isn’t. The amount of push back against the forward momentum of the RoR has been minimal to non-existent. The system is wired to give the RoR every chance of succeeding so that the caveats of the bylaw never come into play. It is my considered opinion that we are wasting our time try to fix those caveats.
On the issue of the CCT, it’s been generally acknowledged that the first one happened too quickly and delaying it was, in fact, one of the recommendations of ATRT3. Honestly, I’m not convinced we should do one at all given our justification for a new round THIS time was expanding the registry pool through IDNs and applicants from underserved regions. THAT’S what should be reviewed, this time around, no? I suppose a CCTRT could include that in their review but doing a new competition analysis probably isn’t worth it given we still know nothing about the market.
So, I bow to the majority here but I think rejecting the bylaw amendment is a fool’s errand and won’t accomplish anything, even symbolically. Happy to discuss further, of course. I’m only one vote. Jonathan
P.S. we were informed of EC issues by the 10th and I’m finding out it might have been my responsibility to circulate them to a wider audience that they all seemed pretty procedural, other than the bylaw amendment and could be put up for a pro forma vote by the ALAC. JZ
*From: *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date: *Friday, May 22, 2026 at 1:02 PM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: ICANN Board Bylaws Amendments and matters relating to the Review of Reviews
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-...
*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* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-03-05-2026-en#section2.b>* - 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)
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Right now, I would strongly recommend that we FOCUS our efforts on putting in input in writing to the RoR CCG process, because as it stands, that is where and how change can be negotiated and put up for community consensus, Board approval and Org implementation, in that order. The Transition Article 27.6 is a safeguard or backstop for if no change were to come about out of the RoR CCG process. However, do note that we aren't the only ones a say in the RoR CCG. The rest of the ICANN community also have a say, and if we're the lone voice on something, then it will be harder to push for a change. Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 23 May 2026 at 12:51, Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
I wonder whether, regardless of the position eventually taken on the amendment, it might also be useful to consider some kind of Advice or statement more focused on how all of this will be followed through during the transition.
I think it could perhaps be useful to look at this in three stages:
- first, in the Advice, setting out some clear and reasonable expectations; for example, what ALAC would expect regarding the restart of ATR and other pending reviews, what level of visibility should exist around implementation and pending recommendations, and how the community is supposed to assess over time whether these changes are actually working as intended;
- then, continuing to monitor whether those expectations are actually being met; perhaps using the updates, milestones and existing spaces already available to periodically review how all of this is progressing in practice;
- and, if further delays or major timeline changes arise later on, at least there would already be a clear reference point regarding the expectations and commitments originally outlined during this transition.
I think something along those lines could also help maintain greater visibility into how these accountability-related issues evolve over the coming years.
Just sharing the thought.
Eunice
El vie, 22 de may de 2026, 20:34, Alan Greenberg via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> escribió:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change; - annoy some people; - cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and - cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
Alan
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Zuck via OFB-WG < ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Olivier, I apologize for my silence. I was waiting on two things, a temperature of this list about your thoughts as well as any indication I could get help from there other EC members. I don’t have an innate desire to make another symbolic filing, honestly, and would rather keep seeing the drum inside the RoR to get what consideration we are able. We are in a perfect storm of agendas and apathy that will amount to a similar disregard as experienced on our previous EC endeavor.
Things of note. We didn’t file advice on this topic, merely responded to a call for public comments. As such the Board doesn’t carry the same burden of consideration and justification. Once again, our voice was the sole voice but at least we have our opinions on the record.
As for the substance of your concerns, it is, indeed unfortunate that it will take a while to see another ATR, if the RoR is not accepted. That said, I don’t see a universe in which it isn’t. The amount of push back against the forward momentum of the RoR has been minimal to non-existent. The system is wired to give the RoR every chance of succeeding so that the caveats of the bylaw never come into play. It is my considered opinion that we are wasting our time try to fix those caveats.
On the issue of the CCT, it’s been generally acknowledged that the first one happened too quickly and delaying it was, in fact, one of the recommendations of ATRT3. Honestly, I’m not convinced we should do one at all given our justification for a new round THIS time was expanding the registry pool through IDNs and applicants from underserved regions. THAT’S what should be reviewed, this time around, no? I suppose a CCTRT could include that in their review but doing a new competition analysis probably isn’t worth it given we still know nothing about the market.
So, I bow to the majority here but I think rejecting the bylaw amendment is a fool’s errand and won’t accomplish anything, even symbolically. Happy to discuss further, of course. I’m only one vote. Jonathan
P.S. we were informed of EC issues by the 10th and I’m finding out it might have been my responsibility to circulate them to a wider audience that they all seemed pretty procedural, other than the bylaw amendment and could be put up for a pro forma vote by the ALAC. JZ
*From: *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date: *Friday, May 22, 2026 at 1:02 PM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: ICANN Board Bylaws Amendments and matters relating to the Review of Reviews
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-...
*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* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-03-05-2026-en#section2.b>* - 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)
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Alan, thank you for your follow-up. I take your point in relation to "Advice" and am sad that we'd need to constantly downplay the ALAC's input in ICANN's processes by not emphasising the importance of "Advice" but by also consciously and constantly undermining the importance of "advice". If ALAC "advice" is so inconsequential, why are we intent on wasting scarce volunteer resources on it? Let me answer the rest of your email inline: On 23/05/2026 03:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change;
Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would vehemently disagree of starting an effort when you already think you'll lose.
- annoy some people;
Since when is this a cause for concern? Not in 2026. I could quote many historical examples whereas the fear of annoying people caused inaction that led to catastrophe.
- cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and
The answer for this is simple: this complete ecosystem would not be possible without end users purchasing domain names. So the money comes from Internet domain name Registrants. If ICANN's mindset is such that it is wasting money on the very people who are meant to be served by the organisation, then it's time everyone packs up their bags and go home.
- cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
None of the points you have made are valid reasons for inaction, this one included.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
There is no idealism in my prose. Neither is there "frustration", or "passion". I am stating basic facts which put ICANN, the Organisation, and its complete multistakeholder ecosystem at risk: 1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws 2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly 3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants. 4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no *independent *oversight of these failings to good Governance. You might find basic reading matter interesting: Enron; Lehman Brothers; UK Post Office Horizon Scandal -- all of whom were afflicted with significantly poor Governance. Kindest regards, Olivier
Olivier, to be clear, I didn't claim any of the bullets were sufficient to reach my conclusion, but all together I felt that taking action on it was not worth our effort. It was a judgment call on whether to take action, not a claim that everything was rosy. Alan Alan On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for your follow-up. I take your point in relation to "Advice" and am sad that we'd need to constantly downplay the ALAC's input in ICANN's processes by not emphasising the importance of "Advice" but by also consciously and constantly undermining the importance of "advice". If ALAC "advice" is so inconsequential, why are we intent on wasting scarce volunteer resources on it?
Let me answer the rest of your email inline:
On 23/05/2026 03:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change;
Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would vehemently disagree of starting an effort when you already think you'll lose.
- annoy some people;
Since when is this a cause for concern? Not in 2026. I could quote many historical examples whereas the fear of annoying people caused inaction that led to catastrophe.
- cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and
The answer for this is simple: this complete ecosystem would not be possible without end users purchasing domain names. So the money comes from Internet domain name Registrants. If ICANN's mindset is such that it is wasting money on the very people who are meant to be served by the organisation, then it's time everyone packs up their bags and go home.
- cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
None of the points you have made are valid reasons for inaction, this one included.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
There is no idealism in my prose. Neither is there "frustration", or "passion". I am stating basic facts which put ICANN, the Organisation, and its complete multistakeholder ecosystem at risk:
1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws 2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly 3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants. 4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no *independent *oversight of these failings to good Governance.
You might find basic reading matter interesting: Enron; Lehman Brothers; UK Post Office Horizon Scandal -- all of whom were afflicted with significantly poor Governance.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Thank you to everyone for contributing to this important conversation. Olivier deserves a special thank you for providing evidence which documents the following conclusions. 1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws 2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly 3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants. 4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no *independent *oversight of these failings to good Governance. I believe there is a consensus of agreement in this conversation which agrees that Olivier's four bullets are accurate. So, what are the implications of Olivier’s well documented conclusions? I’d like to point out the words found in ICANN Bylaw Article 12, d, i which includes the words “The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.” Connecting Olivier’s conclusions with the above phrase from the ICANN bylaws, I believe it's reasonable to infer that ICANN’s accountability mechanisms defined in the ICANN bylaws are broken. I do not believe the ICANN bylaws should be taken for idealistic goals. I believe the bylaws direct us towards two important existential questions … What is ICANN? … and What is At-Large? Alan raises a point about one of these questions, when he says formal action may “cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us”. I’ve heard this question before. I think At-Large should not be afraid to discuss this question in an open and transparent manner. In fact, I believe the At-Large community can find many good answers to this question that would be exposed by having an open discussion within the At-Large community on this topic. As for the question What is At-Large?, if we go back to the words found in ICANN Bylaw Article 12, d, i, I will suggest that the At-Large responsibility on providing ICANN accountability is tied to the At-Large responsibility for outreach to individual Internet users. For instance, when At-Large reaches out to End Users and tries to get them to participate in the At-Large community, when intelligent End Users eventually learn that ICANN is designed (through operational policy rather than bylaw definition) in such a way as to not be accountable to At-Large advice, then there’s no motivation for a End Users to volunteer their time, knowledge and effort to the At-Large work. In fact, this operational design feeds the cynicism and distrust that affects other global institutions. ICANN suffers reputational risk by allowing a broken accountability mechanism to continue. End Users are smart. What motivation does an intelligent End User have to participate in a community that’s only an impotent hood ornament of the ICANN “Multistakeholder” myth? I’m not suggesting any opinion on action at this point, however, I do think it’s important that we have a transparent conversation about these existential questions as a means towards building consensus on actions which might change this state of being in the future. Regards David On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 5:41 PM Alan Greenberg via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Olivier, to be clear, I didn't claim any of the bullets were sufficient to reach my conclusion, but all together I felt that taking action on it was not worth our effort. It was a judgment call on whether to take action, not a claim that everything was rosy.
Alan
Alan
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for your follow-up. I take your point in relation to "Advice" and am sad that we'd need to constantly downplay the ALAC's input in ICANN's processes by not emphasising the importance of "Advice" but by also consciously and constantly undermining the importance of "advice". If ALAC "advice" is so inconsequential, why are we intent on wasting scarce volunteer resources on it?
Let me answer the rest of your email inline:
On 23/05/2026 03:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As implied in my earlier mail, it is crucial that if we are giving formal ADVICE, we label it as such. I recognize that at the time, we clearly did not think that this was an issue that would have needed such attention.
Regarding how to react now, it may be that I am simply old and crotchety, but I think that taking formal action now will: - cause a bunch of paperwork and effort, but end up with no change;
Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would vehemently disagree of starting an effort when you already think you'll lose.
- annoy some people;
Since when is this a cause for concern? Not in 2026. I could quote many historical examples whereas the fear of annoying people caused inaction that led to catastrophe.
- cause some people to wonder why ICANN is wasting money on us; and
The answer for this is simple: this complete ecosystem would not be possible without end users purchasing domain names. So the money comes from Internet domain name Registrants. If ICANN's mindset is such that it is wasting money on the very people who are meant to be served by the organisation, then it's time everyone packs up their bags and go home.
- cause a few people to admire us for sticking to our principles.
None of the points you have made are valid reasons for inaction, this one included.
The negatives seem to far outweigh the positives.
I admire Olivier's idealism, but the cynic in me cannot recommend putting volunteer effort into this.
There is no idealism in my prose. Neither is there "frustration", or "passion". I am stating basic facts which put ICANN, the Organisation, and its complete multistakeholder ecosystem at risk:
1. ICANN is acting outside its Bylaws 2. It is attempting to fix its breaking of the Bylaws by re-writing them on the fly 3. There appears to be no interest in the ICANN Board or Management (and it seems, in the Community neither) to perform ICANN's mandated reviews prior to substantive completion of the next "new gTLD round" that is widely thought to bring substantial income to both the Organisation and potentially other participants. 4. With the Empowered Community being what it is, there appears to be no *independent *oversight of these failings to good Governance.
You might find basic reading matter interesting: Enron; Lehman Brothers; UK Post Office Horizon Scandal -- all of whom were afflicted with significantly poor Governance.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
David Mackey -
Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello -
Jonathan Zuck -
Justine Chew -
Murray McKercher -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond