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.