Hi Chris,
I note that Mission,Commitments, and Core Values are all set forth in Article 1 of the Bylaws.  The Transparency obligation is not listed in Article 1 so a reference to Mission, Commitments, and Core Values does not in fact incorporate a review of whether these items are being executed in a Transparent manner.  Becky's comment is that Transparency and Accountability are the "chapeau" over everything in a review but we have not actually said that because we have only made reference to the Article 1 language of the Bylaws.  So it is, to my mind, quite possible to say we can conduct a review of a Commitment WITHOUT conducting a review of whether the decisions made in achieving that Commitment were made in a Transparent manner.  Transparency is not in fact a defined Commitment under the Bylaws.  It is a separate obligation under Article 3:

ARTICLE 3 TRANSPARENCY

Section 3.1. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT

ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness, including implementing procedures to (a) provide advance notice to facilitate stakeholder engagement in policy development decision-making and cross-community deliberations, (b) maintain responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions (including how comments have influenced the development of policy considerations), and (c) encourage fact-based policy development work. ICANN shall also implement procedures for the documentation and public disclosure of the rationale for decisions made by the Board and ICANN's constituent bodies (including the detailed explanations discussed above).


And so if you say you are going to review a topic in the Mission, Commitments, or Core Values and fail to say whether you will also review its execution from the standpoint of Transparency, you are throwing out the element of Transparency Review.

This is of greater concern than the Accountability aspect since there are independent mechanisms available to the community under Article 4 of the Bylaws to ensure Accountability,   However, I note that if the community wanted to review ICANN's record and process for those Accountability Mechanisms, that would be outside of the listed scope because Accountability is in Article 4 and is not listed in Mission, Commitment, or Core Values in Article 

Bottom line - a reference to Review of Mission, Commitments, and Core Values does not in fact encompass the obligation for those topics to be examined through the lens of Transparency, which is a different Article in the Bylaws and thus is not specifically invoked in the proposed draft.  So that is what I am trying to add in some fashion.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com


On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:23 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Chris.  As an Observer, I do not have permission to add comments to the document so I am adding a comment to the new text shown below based on my previous comment, 


Each SO or AC leadership settles on a slate of topics they believe have consensus in their SO or AC, using the designated template that features built-in limits (3?) and rankings. Any suggested topic should be documented with rationale , including the relationship between the suggested topic and ICANN's Accountability and Transparency obligations under the Bylaws.



Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026


On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:12 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Chris.  I plan to review before the April 7 call.  One thing I think Leadership and the CCG need to consider is whether the proposal can be translated into a workable Bylaws Amendment to replace the transition amendment that will likely be adopted by the Board.  There are aspects of the scoping process and the lack of a regular cadence to the reviews which strike me as difficult to translate into concrete Bylaws language.  If the language is too "loosey-goosey", then the effort could be stalled at the stage of public comment or even later in the Bylaws amendment approval process.  

Can we address Scoping Group WG guidelines and Cadence of Bucket A reviews with an eye toward effecting these changes via the Bylaws amendment process?  https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/governance/draft-bylaws-playbook-23-10-2025-en.pdf

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026


On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 1:10 AM Chris Disspain via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings All,

Here is the link to the document amended following our call last week. We’ll be discussing it again on our call tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1500 UTC but input before then on the document or this list will be appreciated.

Most of the takeaways from the previous call have been covered I think. We still need to discuss well crafted language around resourcing to avoid artificial constraints based on topic. Any thoughts on that are most welcome.

There are also two ‘meta’ topics that need to be taken back to CCG:
a) transparency of scoping group (applicable across all buckets)
b) clear definition of topic boundaries for ATR plus clear wording on ability to be forward looking and to look at past ATRs.

Any input on those is also welcome as it will help in the broader discussion.

See you all tomorrow.


Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain
Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance 


AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg

On 1 Apr 2026, at 14:26, Chris Disspain via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> wrote:

Hello All,

As discussed yesterday here is a straw-being on the scoping process which we will discuss on our call at 1500 UTC tomorrow. 


Feel free to ask questions or make comments on the google doc or to this list before our call. Observers input is also welcome.

Tomorrow we will also discuss the second question around setting safeguards for time limiting scoping exercises.


Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain
Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance 


<AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg>


<DRAFT Straw Scoping Process - Subgroup 1 Apr 26.docx>
_______________________________________________
Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review mailing list -- reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review mailing list -- reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org