On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 00:59, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via OFB-WG <
ofb-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine,
thank you for sharing this draft.
Do community members in At-Large have the same concern than me when
it comes to the very concept of creating a "transition article",
which points to the ability for ICANN to re-define the goalposts on
the fly? If so, how can this concern be expressed in the Statement?
I am not saying it is a red line, but it is a matter of concern in
an organisation that is supposed to show good governance.
It’s a valid comment. I see this a bit differently, that the Transition Article is being developed through ICANN’s formal Bylaws amendment process, so I would view it as part of established governance rather than redefining obligations on the fly once triggered. Transition Article is necessary to provide a structured and time-bound mechanism to address known inefficiencies in the current review system. Bylaws are rigid but reality isn’t
That said, I agree it’s important that this remains clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure.
A comment can be added simply. or something similar.
"We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a necessary and temporary measure to address current challenges in the review system, and agree that it should remain clearly framed as a temporary and purpose-driven measure. "