I support the use of the proposed Transition Article as a practical and time-limited way to bring ICANN back into alignment with its Bylaws obligations while the community continues its discussion on how the review framework should evolve.

The proposal strikes a sensible balance. It does not reopen or alter Article 4.6 itself, but provides space for the current dialogue to mature without creating further procedural uncertainty. The capped pause and the outlined restart sequencing demonstrate that this is a structured adjustment rather than an open-ended deferral.

As this moves forward, regular communication to the community during the pause period will be important to maintain clarity and shared confidence in the process. If the reviews do restart under the existing framework, careful attention to implementation capacity, volunteer bandwidth, and the availability of meaningful data, particularly for the CCT Review will help ensure that the next cycle of reviews is both effective and impactful.

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 period, together with thoughtful consideration of implementation capacity, community workload, and data readiness when reviews resume, will help ensure that future review cycles are effective, meaningful, and well supported.