Hi Anne – good day. I’ve given permissions for you to comment again, apologies for the inconvenience so hopefully things are ok this time – whenever you have a moment, give it a try and let us know, thank you! Yvette Guigneaux Strategic Initiatives Senior Coordinator | GDS ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)] From: Anne ICANN via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 at 11:24 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, avri <avri@doria.org>, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Cc: "reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org" <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> Subject: [Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review] Re: straw-being as agreed 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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:12 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto: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-23-10-20... [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/governance/dra...> Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 1:10 AM Chris Disspain via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org<mailto: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. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU_NFbAUSf14qvNubbaWt/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU...> 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 [cid:image002.jpg@01DCC665.EFEE9860] On 1 Apr 2026, at 14:26, Chris Disspain via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org<mailto: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. It is also available as a google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU_NFbAUSf14qvNubbaWt/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU...>). 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<mailto:reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review mailing list -- reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org<mailto:reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org>
