Thanks Anne and David for your input. Let’s discuss the points raised on our call later today. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance 

On 1 Apr 2026, at 21:26, Anne ICANN via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Chris,

A few comments prior to the April 2 meeting:

1. I would add to the Screening Process (in second place after the reference to the Mission) a requirement to state that the topic must recommend a procedure or process closely related to the Accountability and Transparency requirements of the ICANN Bylaws (After all, we are calling this the ATR bucket.)

2. I would limit the SOs and AC leadership to recommending review of no more than three (3) topics. If the list is unlimited, everyone will add a "pet peeve" and you will not get through the screening process in a reasonable time frame.

I agree with David that development of a template makes sense.

Separately, Could you please confirm that the call for topics at the GNSO will be made to GNSO Council Leadership? (I understand that each SO/AC Leadership team would be able to develop approaches to developing the slate within its own body. Trying to figure out how many individuals are involved in analyzing once the topics are submitted?) Is it 3 for GNSO, 5 for the GAC, one for every region of ALAC etc etc - same issue we often have in a CCWG. And does this team operate under the CCWG Working Group Guidelines to make Recommendations for reviews to the Board which must then approve or not?

Thank you, Anne

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

On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 6:26 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:

...

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).

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

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

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

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

[image: 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.

It is also available as a google doc ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU_NFbAUSf14qvNubbaWt/edit ).

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

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>

Chris - you asked for specific language. Another way to come at this would be to state that "Each topic selected for review will be subject to an analysis of compliance with the applicable Transparency obligations of Article 3 of the ICANN Bylaws." Of course the above language does not address an example where the community wants to look at the issue of Transparency by itself triggered by a particular decision or action (as mentioned by Jonathan in relation to NetMundial participation, for example) nor will it address the topic of a Review of Accountability mechanisms appearing in Article 4. Again, the specific and detailed obligations of Articles 3 and 4 are not contained in the Mission, Commitments, or Core Values. Article 1 contains a brief reference to transparency but not one on which an analysis of the full Transparency obligations of Article 3 can be based. Review of Mission, a Commitment, or a Core Value topic without corresponding review of related Transparency obligations fails the community and the MSM. This principle must be included and specifically incorporated in the scoping document for Bucket A. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 9:17 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

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-23-10-20...

Anne

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

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

[image: 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.

It is also available as a google doc ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU_NFbAUSf14qvNubbaWt/edit ).

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

Many thanks. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 3:59 AM Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> wrote:

Hi Anne,

Thanks for the specific language which, I think, works. We’ll incorporate it into the next draft.

Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance

[image: AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg]

On 7 Apr 2026, at 21:27, Anne ICANN via Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review < reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org> wrote:

Chris - you asked for specific language. Another way to come at this would be to state that "Each topic selected for review will be subject to an analysis of compliance with the applicable Transparency obligations of Article 3 of the ICANN Bylaws."

Of course the above language does not address an example where the community wants to look at the issue of Transparency by itself triggered by a particular decision or action (as mentioned by Jonathan in relation to NetMundial participation, for example) nor will it address the topic of a Review of Accountability mechanisms appearing in Article 4. Again, the specific and detailed obligations of Articles 3 and 4 are not contained in the Mission, Commitments, or Core Values. Article 1 contains a brief reference to transparency but not one on which an analysis of the full Transparency obligations of Article 3 can be based. Review of Mission, a Commitment, or a Core Value topic without corresponding review of related Transparency obligations fails the community and the MSM. This principle must be included and specifically incorporated in the scoping document for Bucket A.

Anne

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

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 9:17 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

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-23-10-20...

Anne

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

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.

It is also available as a google doc ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w2cSH9jhz74gU_NFbAUSf14qvNubbaWt/edit ).

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

_______________________________________________ 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