Thanks, Pari, quite clear and to the point. From: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 7 April 2026 at 08:23 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Cc: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>, OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org>, At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [OFB-WG] Re: [External] [ALAC] Re: Re: For OFBWG comment until 8 April 2026 | Draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” +1 to Pari’s proposed wording Best Hadia From: Pari Esfandiari via ALAC <alac@icann.org> Sent: 07 April 2026 11:47 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Cc: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>; OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org>; Alac <alac@icann.org>; At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [External] [ALAC] Re: [OFB-WG] Re: For OFBWG comment until 8 April 2026 | Draft ALAC statement on “Standard Bylaws Amendment - Transition Article on Specific Reviews” Dear Justine, Olivier, and colleagues, I see value in both perspectives, but I am not happy with the wording. What about: “We recognise that the proposed Transition Article is intended as a narrowly scoped and time-bound response to current challenges. However, such measures should remain exceptional and not set a precedent for future processes.” Cheers, Pari On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:33 AM Justine Chew via OFB-WG <ofb-wg@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg@icann.org>> 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<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ OFB-WG mailing list -- ofb-wg@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to ofb-wg-leave@icann.org<mailto:ofb-wg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: US :+1-202-735-1415 (Office) US : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) Europe: +30-694-1607131 (Cell) UK : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)