Draft Report Frequently Asked Questions
The FAQ in the Draft Report is intended to be a living document and will be updated throughout the public comment period to address questions and requests for clarification received by the Reviews CCG.
Last updated: 25 June 2026
About the Process
Who is the Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (Reviews CCG) and what is its role?
The Reviews CCG brings together members from ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs), the ICANN Board, and organization (org), two Expert Advisors and observers, to take a fresh look at the current reviews system.
With its charter approved by the Board in September 2025, the Reviews CCG is managing a fundamental evaluation of reviews set out by the ICANN Bylaws, as a whole system, including their implementation.
What is in the Draft Report?
The Draft Report represents the conclusion of the third phase of work of the Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (CCG). The proposed refreshed system of reviews presented in this report is intended to reflect the input, feedback, and perspectives gathered throughout the first three phases.
What happens next?
The Review CCG will carefully consider the comments and input received during the public comment period and through other avenues, as appropriate, and will develop a Final Report.
The Final Report will be submitted to Nominating Groups for confirmation of support and submitted to the ICANN Board, along with the documentation of support, for next steps.
About the Recommended Reviews System
What is the purpose of reviews under the Recommended Reviews System?
The purpose of reviews is to assess whether ICANN is fulfilling its Mission and complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Article 3 transparency obligations (“Transparency Obligations”) and, where needed, to recommend changes and/or improvements to ICANN’s processes, procedures, and/or structures to ensure those goals.
What is the system of reviews the Reviews CCG is recommending?
Drawing on the findings and input received, the Reviews CCG recommends a three-pillar framework for ICANN Reviews that includes:
Two scheduled reviews, the Accountability and Transparency Review and a Structural Review;
On-demand focused reviews that can be initiated as warranted;
A one-time review related to the Continuous Improvement Program pilot (CIP).
Additionally, the Reviews CCG recommends the establishment of a Reviews Scoping Committee (RSC) to serve as a central coordination mechanism across the refreshed ICANN Reviews framework.
The proposal is based on functional differentiation. It recognises that accountability, structural evolution and emerging circumstances are fundamentally different governance questions requiring different review mechanisms. Just as ICANN has different Supporting Organizations because different policy domains require different expertise, different review types allow review teams to develop expertise and methodologies appropriate to the question being asked
How would existing reviews be affected by the recommended system?
The Reviews CCG recommends retaining the assessment of issues and areas covered by the Specific Reviews currently articulated in Section 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws, but would recommend evolving mechanisms to conduct these as follows:
Assessment of Accountability and Transparency would continue as part of a scheduled assessment of whether ICANN is fulfilling its Mission and complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Article 3 transparency obligations (“Transparency Obligations”). The Accountability and Transparency review (ATR) remit would evolve and each review would begin with a scoping process;
Assessment of the commitments to Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (“SSR”); effectiveness of the then current Registration Directory Service (“RDS”); and Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (“CCT”) tied to the new gTLD round would continue to be addressed:
As topics within the scope of the ATR;
Through periodic opportunities, mandated in the ICANN Bylaws, to conduct focused reviews of specific issues under these headings.
The Organizational Reviews articulated in Section 4.4 of ICANN Bylaws are considered superseded by the CIP pilot. Under its charter, the Reviews CCG cannot make recommendations related to the CIP pilot.
Why is the Reviews CCG recommending to retain references to the Specific Review topics in the recommended system?
Accountability and transparency are fundamental pillars of ICANN’s multistakeholder model and the primary function of reviews is to ensure that ICANN is fulfilling its Mission and complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Article 3 transparency obligations (“Transparency Obligations”). While the topics encompassed by the SSR, RDS, and CCT reviews fall squarely within the scope of an ATR, the Reviews CCG recognizes their importance and as such, is recommending a mechanism by which need for review of issues under these headings can be proactively considered at designated intervals. The review of reviews also benefits from a periodic check. A third option is for these issues to be addressed through an on demand request under matters that require reviews.
Why is the Reviews CCG recommending a Structural Review?
Although structural review discussions have previously taken place, and community groups have ways to evolve their structures, the Reviews CCG believes there remains a lack of a regular, structured mechanism for assessing the ICANN construct to identify potential gaps and areas for enhancement. The Reviews CCG considers that it is essential to have a review fully dedicated to structure and recommends that structure related discussions be kept separate from the ATR focus.
In what way is the recommended system addressing challenges set out in the charter?
The establishment of the RSC will strengthen the governance of reviews by ensuring they are initiated at the appropriate time, proactively scoped to result in meaningful conclusions and actionable recommendations, supported by sufficient resources, and conducted under optimal conditions. Community involvement and endorsement in both review scoping and outcome approval ensures alignment throughout the review lifecycle. The RSC will enhance accountability and preserve the operational agility required for an effective review process.
The refreshed reviews system allows for flexibility based on availability of resources. The scheduled reviews may be deferred, with community approval, in cases of resource or capacity constraints, with safeguards to prevent repeated delays. Additionally, the on-demand framework provides flexibility required to initiate reviews when there is clear need for review of topics under SSR, RDS, CCT, and Review of Reviews headings and/or review of other topics, where warranted.
The proposed refreshed reviews system would allow for improved alignment on review outcomes and ultimately contribute to a facilitated Board consideration through pre-agreed scoping or mandates, representative participation from community, Board, org, and community sign-off on suggested solutions.
The proposed refreshed reviews system allows for improved oversight on status of implementation with implementation as a recommended scope item of the scheduled ATR but also through the recommended continued existence of community review teams during Board consideration of review outcomes and through the establishment of implementation review teams that would supervise the development of solutions. The RSC will also monitor and document progress, dependencies, resource considerations, and overall implementation planning across the review framework.
What safeguards do you have in place to prevent continued deferral of scheduled reviews?
While deferral is permitted when necessary, it must be time-bound and justified. The decision to defer a scheduled review is fully vested in the community groups. The scheduled reviews, however, cannot be postponed indefinitely, or be open-ended. Safeguards include limiting approvals to a maximum of two deferrals, with the first deferral not exceeding 18 months and the second 12 months.
About the Recommended Accountability and Transparency Review (ATR)
What sort of topics can the ATR cover?
The ATR can cover:
Aspects of how ICANN has delivered on its Mission and is complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Transparency Obligations. This includes the topics of existing Specific Reviews covered under Section 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws together with previously approved recommendations from past ATRs;
Issues listed in the existing ATR, with exception of items of structural nature, now covered through the scheduled Structural Review, and the termination or amendment of other periodic reviews, now addressed through the Review of Reviews;
In evaluating whether ICANN is fulfilling its Mission and complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Transparency Obligations, ATR reviews will assess the outcomes and progress achieved in respect of goals set out in planning documentation, recommend improvements where necessary, and identify key development areas that may strengthen ICANN’s effectiveness in support of its Mission.
Additionally, the RSC may recommend the analysis of implementation of prior ATR review outputs and the effectiveness of deployed solutions as a scope item.
How will the scheduled Accountability & Transparency Review differ from the current system?
The overall scope of the Accountability and Transparency Review (ATR) is intentionally broad, hence the scope of a particular ATR may vary, within the set boundaries, and is determined through a vigorous, community-driven scoping process that takes place prior to selecting the review team. ATR will cover existing areas in Section 4.6 (b)((ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, with the exception of items of a structural nature and Review of Reviews. The ATRs will serve to assess how ICANN has delivered on its Mission and is complying with its Bylaws, Articles, Commitments, Core Values, and Transparency Obligations, including issues related to CCT, RDS, and SSR. In conducting this work, ATR reviews will also assess the outcomes and progress achieved in respect of goals set out in planning documentation, recommend improvements where necessary, and identify key development areas that may strengthen ICANN’s effectiveness in support of its Mission.
Who participates in the Scoping Process for the ATR?
Every five years, the Reviews Scoping Committee (RSC) prompts a process to scope the ATR. Each SO, AC, and the ICANN Board are requested to organize an internal consultation to submit a slate back to the RSC. The RSC then rationalizes the set of topics based on established criteria and works with ICANN org on assessing the feasibility and resources needed. The initial shortlist along with resources requirements are posted for public comment. After considering community feedback, the RSC develops a final shortlist and seeks endorsement from the SOs and ACs. If at least five SOs and ACs support the proposed topics, the RSC drafts the review charter and submits it to the Board for consideration and action. For additional details, see Section 3.1.1.4 of the Draft Report.
Who will conduct the ATR?
The review is conducted by a Community Review Team, with the option to be assisted by experts, with conclusions and recommended actions, if any, to be provided to the ICANN Board.
The Community Review Team would consist of:
three representatives from each ICANN SO and AC;
three representatives from the ICANN Board; and
three representatives from ICANN org.
If a participating SO/AC, Board, or ICANN org appoints fewer than its allotted representatives, the unfilled seats would remain vacant and can not be reassigned to any other group.
What is the cadence of the ATR and why?
The ATR is conducted once every five years, if possible in alignment with the strategic planning cycle. This schedule is designed to enable the review's findings to feed into the subsequent strategic planning cycle to the extent possible.
About the Structural Review
How will the scope of the proposed Structural Review differ from the current Organizational Reviews?
The scope of the proposed Structural Review looks into the ICANN ecosystem globally including interrelationships among its SO/ACs. It serves to ensure that ICANN remains optimally aligned with its mission and continues to operate effectively in support of its responsibilities. The objective of the structural assessment is to determine whether any structural or operational changes are desirable. The Structural Review is conducted through three phases with phase one being dedicated to an external landscape assessment, followed by an internal assessment and then a consequential effects review, if needed, intended to determine what updates are needed to accommodate changes identified in prior phases.
Will the Structural Review include reviewing the Board and Nominating Committee structures?
Yes, the ICANN Board and Nominating Committee are critical components of the Structural Review’s analytical framework.
Why does the Reviews CCG recommend a 15-year cadence?
There must be sufficient time for solutions to be implemented and assessed, allowing them the opportunity to evolve. This proposed 15-year* strikes a balance between the 20-year and 10-year timeframes which were both suggested in the elaboration of the proposal.
*The Reviews CCG would specifically welcome input on the proposed cadence to help inform ongoing discussions on timing. A member and some observers notably suggest a 10-year window.
How will the Structural Review consider the CIP work?
Depending on whether the CIP pilot is assessed as successful and rolled out as an official mechanism and requirement for all community groups, CIP outcomes may inform individual groups’ structural discussions or feed into the broader structural review discussions.
Who will conduct the Structural Review?
Phase 1 will be conducted by external experts, working together with a Community Liaison Working Group, with no specific representation requirements, while phases 2 and 3 will be conducted by a Cross-Community Working Group, using existing practices.
Are recommendations about individual SO or AC structures required to be accepted?
There is no requirement for a given group to accept any recommendations that may emerge from a Structural Review or Consequential Effects Review. Such recommendations are advisory for consideration by SO/ACs, in order to indicate, within a set period of time, whether it accepts or rejects any or all of them, along with a rationale.
Is there a scoping process associated with the scheduled Structural Review?
There is no scoping process associated with the Structural Review but the Structural Review is to investigate any existing or longstanding issues in addition to deliverables identified in its phases.
About the On-Demand Framework
What type of review is included in the On-Demand Framework and how is each initiated?
The On-Demand Framework covers three types of reviews:
Issues under SSR, RDS, CCT and Review of Reviews, specifically:
SSR - ICANN’s execution of its commitment to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and global interoperability of the systems and processes;
RDS - assessment of the effectiveness of the then current gTLD registry directory service;
CCT - Aspects of gTLD Round which derives from the assessment of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice review tied to the introduction of new gTLDs.
Review of Reviews: audit the review system to assess whether it is performing as intended and is still fit for the purpose of enhancing accountability and transparency.
The RSC will seek interest in conducting a review of issues under these categories:
Every two years after Board action on Accountability and Transparency Review recommendations: rotating between SSR and RDS.
every ten years: Review of Reviews.
Within two years of the first delegation in the current round of new gTLDs and thereafter as an On-Demand review: CCT
Matters that require review. Circumstances indicate that there is a pressing need for a review that cannot wait until the next regularly scheduled ATR or Structural Review. The process requires a minimum of two SO and/or ACs raising a suggested topic, in the format of a charter. Should the Board raise a topic, a minimum of two SO and/or ACs need to support the request.
While there is no cadence, the RSC is responsible for ensuring no duplication of efforts, the timing is appropriate and the availability of adequate resources and bandwidth to conduct the suggested on-demand review.
The Consequential Effects Review provides a mechanism for the ICANN community to transparently consider the impacts of structural changes on the broader ICANN system and make recommendations for how affected mechanisms should be adjusted (including for example, Board composition, Empowered Community composition and processes, Nominating Committee composition and processes, ICANN Bylaws). They follow from an On-Demand Review of an SO or AC or from internal structural changes undertaken by an SO or AC.
The On-Demand Framework does not replace or route around the policy development processes set out in the Bylaws. The Reviews CCG recognizes the possibility, however, for reviews to surface policy considerations.
Who will conduct the On-Demand Review?
The On-Demand Review is undertaken by a Community Review Team that includes:
three representatives from each ICANN SO and AC;
three representatives from the ICANN Board; and
three representatives from ICANN org.
If a participating SO/AC, Board, or ICANN org appoints fewer than its allotted representatives, the unfilled seats would remain vacant and can not be reassigned to any other group.
About the One-Time Review
Why is the Reviews CCG recommending a one-time review of the CIP pilot?
The Reviews CCG charter provides that: “The CCG will not evaluate the Continuous Improvement Program itself, but will take account of its work and will consider how it can best contribute to the broader system of reviews.” Recognizing that the CIP remains a pilot initiative, the Reviews CCG concluded that it would be premature to develop a reviews framework predicated on its long-term success or to presume successful outcomes in advance.
Instead, the Reviews CCG recommends conducting a one-time assessment of the pilot CIP to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine whether the initiative should continue, and how the results of future CIPs could be integrated into the broader reviews framework as appropriate in the future.
About the Reviews Scoping Committee (RSC)
What is the composition of the RSC?
The RSC comprises:
A representative from the leadership of each Supporting Organization (“SO”) and Advisory Committee (“AC”);
A representative from the ICANN Board;
A representative from ICANN org; and
Leadership from the immediately preceding relevant review effort for the Accountability and Transparency Reviews.
What decision-making powers will the Reviews Standing Committee have?
None. The decisions regarding proposed ATR scope for Board action, decision to defer and decision to convene an on-demand review on a topic for Board action, and periodic review of SSR, CCT, RDS, Review of Reviews are vested in the ICANN SO/ACs.
The RSC acts as a coordination and liaison mechanism to conduct screening, feasibility assessments, and need for Consequential Review.
The RSC monitors overall implementation planning across the review framework and is responsible for the effective management, non-duplication of efforts and coordination of resources associated with the review processes.