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