Summary

  • The proposed system would put an accountability and transparency review before a structural review. An internet-provider constituency wants the order reversed.
  • With a second consultation planned, the authors have requested delivery in March 2027. The dispute illustrates what is being allocated alongside time: attention, working capacity and the chance to put particular questions first.

Should ICANN first examine its accountability and transparency, or the way the institution is structured? The group redesigning its reviews proposes accountability first. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency, whose position a GNSO member relayed, wants the structural review to come first.

The October progress overview records that difference rather than pretending it has disappeared. Under the proposed timetable, the two scheduled reviews could not run together, although implementation of one could continue while the other begins. Going first would therefore mean something: one set of questions would receive the review process's attention before the other.

The group gives a practical reason for its preference. An accountability and transparency review is already envisaged in ICANN's bylaws; a structural review would still need designing and adding to them. That does not make the constituency's objection vanish, nor does the objection establish that all of GNSO opposes the reform. It makes the second consultation a chance to argue over a concrete choice, not merely endorse a longer calendar.

Another change addresses what reviewers can do once they find a problem. They could examine a policy's effects but could not replace policy development. The relevant Supporting Organization would still decide whether and how to pursue a change. Scrutiny should make a decision-maker answer difficult questions, not quietly hand the decision to the person asking them.

Another draft, then another set of decisions

On October 5, co-chairs Avri Doria, Chris Disspain and Manal Ismail asked the nominating groups to extend delivery of the final report to ICANN88. The progress overview identifies that meeting as March 2027. They also asked to remain empanelled while the report is considered, so they can answer questions and clarify matters.

Their revised work plan puts a second draft out for comment after ICANN87, followed by consideration of responses and a final report to the nominating groups for support. That last step matters. A date for presenting a report is not a promise that the Board will adopt the recommendations by the same date.

The first consultation opened on June 25 and closed on August 4, collecting 23 submissions, including two late ones. The co-chairs had warned on August 12 that a second round was likely. They say the redesign reflects both those comments and their continuing work on definitions, safeguards and stress tests. Twenty-three submissions are input, not 23 votes for one outcome.

One date in the old account needs correcting. August 25 was the due date for the staff summary of public comments. The October overview says the final CCG report had initially been expected in August; it does not make August 25 its deadline.

Coordination without a new centre of command

The proposed Reviews Scoping Committee is a useful example of what has changed. The October overview describes it as a coordinating body making recommendations for endorsement by ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, usually abbreviated SOs and ACs. Board and ICANN organisation participation would take the form of liaison roles. Before a review could start, the committee would check a minimum capacity requirement involving five of the seven SOs and ACs.

Capacity is not an abstract concern here. Reviews require people to examine evidence, attend discussions and turn recommendations into changes. A start date unsupported by available contributors can create a project that exists on paper but struggles to do the work. The proposal tries to make that constraint visible before launch, while leaving substantive endorsement with the community bodies.

It would also make the route out of a review more explicit. Future final reports would go to the Board and SOs and ACs simultaneously. The community bodies would have two months to endorse recommendations, individually or in related packages, with support from at least five of seven needed to meet the proposed threshold. These are proposed rules for the redesigned system—not rules already governing the CCG's own October extension request.

Staying available does not mean staying in charge

The request to remain available after submission is less dramatic than a bid to acquire new authority. The adopted charter already anticipates dialogue between the Board and CCG if the Board considers implementing a recommendation contrary to the global public interest. It also makes dissolution depend on notification from the nominating groups' chairs or their representatives. Delivering the report does not automatically switch the group off.

The charter draws another distinction easily lost in summaries: nominating members counts as support for the charter, but members work in an individual capacity. Decisions on supporting the proposals remain with the SOs and ACs. Keeping the authors available to explain their design would not allow them to supply those bodies' consent.

Nor would a revised work plan reset the separate timetable in ICANN's bylaws. Section 27.6 paused specified reviews from June 10, 2026. It provides for resumption after 12 months unless stated conditions are met, limits the total pause under that provision to 24 months and requires a rationale for an extension. The CCG's request and that bylaw clock are different instruments.

The next revealing document will therefore be the second draft, not simply a new calendar. Does it preserve the boundary between review and policy-making? Does it make the capacity test workable? And can a recommendation travel from its authors to a recorded decision without losing who supported it—or who did not? More time is valuable if it makes those answers clearer.

Corrected and updated October 25, 2026: This version separates the public-comment summary date from final-report delivery, identifies all three signatories and explains the charter's existing dialogue and closure provisions. The original URL and publication date are retained.