Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
هذا المحتوى متوفر فقط باللغة (أو اللغات)
Submissions for this Proceeding
Standard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
NCSG supports the use of a temporary transition article in principle, but only if it is treated as a limited mechanism to restore procedural integrity while the Reviews CCG completes its work. NCSG does not support allowing the amendment to become a generalized suspension tool for accountability obligations. The proposal is strongest where it is narrowly time-bound, linked to identifiable community milestones, and explicit that any long-term c...
Submission Summary:
Please find attached (PDF) the ALAC statement on the "Standard Bylaws Amendment- Transition Article on Specific Reviews".
Ratification information is included in the cover page.
Kind regards,
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large community.
Website: atlarge.icann.org
Submission Summary:
The RrSG supports the proposed time-limited pause mechanism as an interim measure, and agrees that the order and proposed prioritisation of the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review (“ATR”) is the correct approach. The RrSG notes that continued consultation with the broader Community is essential, as is transparency during the pause period so that continued work post-pause can be productive and successful.
Submission Summary:
The ongoing Review of Reviews initiative is an important effort for the ICANN community and the Multistakeholder model. The gTLD Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) appreciates the work of the Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (CCG), whose updates during ICANN 85 showed that the work is progressing.
The RySG supports the proposed Transition Article To Address Specific Reviews, which pauses Specific Reviews for 12 months and defines t...
Submission Summary:
Some elements could be strengthened. First, the criteria for extending the pause—such as requiring support from four of seven Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees—may benefit from additional transparency on how consensus is assessed. Second, while the sequencing of reviews is logical, greater flexibility could be introduced to allow parallelization where capacity permits, especially for time-sensitive areas like security and stabil...
Submission Summary:
The Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the “Standard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews”. The RSSAC supports the proposed Transition Article in full.
Submission Summary:
This submission offers observations on the proposed Transition Article as a community member with active engagement in ICANN's capacity development programmes and public meeting sessions, and broader interest in how ICANN's accountability structures function in practice.
On the proposed pause mechanism, the Transition Article is a reasonable interim measure. Formalising in the Bylaws what has previously been managed through Board resolut...
Submission Summary:
This submission supports the general direction of the proposed Transition Article as a more structured and transparent approach to managing the current review backlog. It highlights the importance of clear progress tracking during the pause period and maintaining focus on security, stability, and accountability while a long-term review model is being developed.
Submission Summary:
I support the proposed Transition Article as a temporary mechanism to clarify ICANN’s obligations regarding Specific Reviews. It preserves the current Article 4, Section 4.6 text, creates a time-limited pause, and introduces a staggered restart sequence intended to reduce overlap. These are positive features.
However, the proposal should be strengthened in four areas:
clearer, objective criteria for determining whether the communi...
Submission Summary:
The proposed Transition Article (Section 27.6) strengthens how ICANN manages Specific Reviews by introducing a clear, transparent framework with defined conditions and timelines. It enhances predictability and accountability, provides the community with greater clarity on the status and timing of reviews, and supports more inclusive participation; particularly for less-resourced stakeholders. By adopting a staggered approach to resuming review...
Submission Summary:
I agree that the proposed rigid sequencing and initiation-based timers are counterproductive, as they mathematically guarantee the very overlap and community burnout the amendment seeks to avoid. Your point about the "black box" risk during a 24-month pause is also spot on; a total cessation of oversight without transparency invites stagnation. However, I disagree...
Submission Summary:
I am aware that Specific Reviews are mandatory for ICANN to demonstrate transparency to its stakeholders. In addition, I understand the community's effort to improve the review process and reduce fatigue due to overlapping cycles. However, I believe that the proposed sequencing in Section 27.6 (c)(ii) fails to protect the risk landscape of the DNS. As stated in the SSR2 Final Report in 2021, the audit classified 20 out of 24 recommendation gro...
Submission Summary:
I see the proposed Transition Article as a pragmatic and balanced way to address ICANN’s current obligations relating to Specific Reviews, while allowing the ongoing community work on review evolution to continue constructively. The approach preserves the existing framework of Article 4.6 and provides a clearly defined, time-limited pause, with appropriate conditions and sequencing for any restart.
Ongoing transparency during the pause p...