Much better. Thanks! Olivier On 07/04/2026 11:32, Justine Chew wrote:
To be clear, I suggested language of " ..../We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a _necessarily narrow and timebound measure_ to address the current challenges out of the reviews schedule, and we wish to highlight our input as follows./", instead of saying that it was strictly necessary.
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 16:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 07/04/2026 08:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
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. "
I do not think the proposed Transition Article is "necessary". I see it more as a post-event fudge to try to ease the fact that at present ICANN is not following its Bylaws. Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html