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 community dialogue is making sufficient progress to justify any further pause;

regular public reporting during the pause period;

readiness criteria for restarting reviews, including implementation, staffing, budget, and volunteer capacity; and

further explanation of the proposed trigger for the CCT Review tied to the next round and the delegation of 500 gTLDs.

If no permanent Bylaws changes result from the current work, restarting reviews should be based not only on timing, but also on ICANN’s practical ability to support reviews and implement recommendations effectively.

I support the use of the proposed Transition Article as a temporary mechanism to clarify ICANN’s obligations regarding Specific Reviews, provided that additional safeguards for accountability, transparency, and measurable progress are made explicit.

The proposal has several strengths. First, it does not alter the existing text of Article 4, Section 4.6; instead, it creates a transitional framework. Second, it establishes a defined pause period of 12 months, with a hard cap of 24 months in total. Third, if the obligations resume, it provides a staggered restart schedule intended to avoid the overlap that has contributed to review fatigue and implementation bottlenecks. These are sensible features of the draft.

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 community dialogue is making sufficient progress to justify any further pause;

regular public reporting during the pause period;

readiness criteria for restarting reviews, including implementation, staffing, budget, and volunteer capacity; and

further explanation of the proposed trigger for the CCT Review tied to the next round and the delegation of 500 gTLDs.

If no permanent Bylaws changes result from the current work, restarting reviews should be based not only on timing, but also on ICANN’s practical ability to support reviews and implement recommendations effectively.