Hi Avri I understand your point as this submission was much wider. Below I’ve tried to abbreviate the response to the Questions set. Question 1: How to define the purpose of a Structural Review. To assess the effectiveness of the structure as a whole Top priorities include: * Structural efficiencies and short-comings * Appropriateness and relevance of sub-structures * Whether the current structure sufficiently represents relevant participants within the Internet * Stakeholder engagement mechanisms need to be considered * Board composition, and decision-making processes. Question 2: What are the existing ways in ICANN Bylaws to change a structure Currently as a result of organizational reviews, but this is considered very limited. The Review of reviews should look to provide more flexibility such as a proposal from one part of the organizational structure that is not necessarily linked to an organizational review, and even a request from part (but not all) of a substructure of the organization. In such cases the merits of triggering a formal review would then need to be considered by the ICANN community and Board. Question 3: How would a Structural Review co-exist with initiatives such as the Root Server System (RSS) Governance Working Group. A Structural Review could take into account such initiatives in its assessment and look to embed them within its final Recommendations. However, the responsibilities, working methods and processes of such initiatives should not be the prime focus of any structural review. Any direct impact would require due consideration by all impacted parties once they become clear. Question 4: How would the Structural Review differ from the organizational Reviews component of operational structure. Organizational Reviews should not be considered as part of the CIP, although CIP can be viewed as a vital component towards any organizational review, including the triggering of the review cycle. Continuous Improvement should be seen as ‘business as usual, aiming to identify and initiate on-going changes that do not necessarily justify full organizational reviews. Question 5: What should the threshold be to start and stop Several factors have a direct impact here including the identification of structural efficiencies and short-comings, the appropriateness and relevance of sub-structures, whether the current structure sufficiently represents relevant participants within the Internet and the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement mechanisms. Question 6: Should the structural review be moved to on demand? A mandatory baseline schedule is necessary for accountability and predictability, but additional flexibility should be incorporated , enabling reviews to be advanced or delayed by up to 1-2 years due to; * Significant organizational changes (e.g., bylaws amendments or major restructurings). * External pressures impacting ICANN’s operations. * Community consensus Any deviation should require board approval and public justification to maintain trust. An Initial Structural Review should be undertaken as the ‘first’ review of the review cycle once it commences. Undertaking any review of ICANN’s substructure prior to this makes no sense as it could be directly impacted by a subsequent Structural Review. Best Tony From: avri doria via Reviewsccg-subgroup-structural-review <reviewsccg-subgroup-structural-review@icann.org> Sent: 13 April 2026 18:57 To: tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Cc: Osvaldo Novoa <osvaldo.j.novoa@gmail.com>; anil Jain <asdj1990@gmail.com>; philippe.fouquart@orange.com; reviewsccg-subgroup-structural-review@icann.org; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> Subject: [Reviewsccg-subgroup-structural-review] Re: Input on Structural review requirements Hi, Thanks for this. Gave it a quick read, in calls straight through till our meeting. In reading it, do not immediately see anything that differentiates between application of these constraints in Macro and Micro Structural reviews. Nor do I do see anything, at least on first reading, that would prevent this analysis being applied as considerations to either kind of structural review, though perhaps with different degrees of focus. Do you have a view on how your suggestion fits or does not fit with the analysis that we have been working on - in the paper <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FIeEggBqCjzXF0ZiNOeWRpASmhm2wfUEDLRvkZSz...> which is the basis of today's meeting? Thanks avri On 4/13/2026 11:57, tonyarholmes@btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Avri Attached is an input to the sub-team (Bucket C) on the structural review. As you’ll note this has also been endorsed by the ISPCP as a result of Osvaldo, Anil and I keeping then informed of progress. Could I seek your assistance in circulating to the full sub-group prior to call for their consideration. Look forward to discussing more on tonight’s call. Best Regards Tony