At-Large Review of Reviews Cross-Community Group Workspace

Background of the Review of Reviews CCG
Members - ALAC Member: Avri Doria and Jonathan Zuck
Observers
Meeting agendas

Questions on the Draft Purpose of Review of Reviews

RoR Webinars - 18 November 2025:

The Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (CCG) invites the community to continue the conversations about ICANN Reviews during webinars on Tuesday, 18 November 2025. To accommodate participants in multiple time zones, the CCG will host two 90-minute sessions.

Data-gathering is important to the CCG's fact-finding phase. Participants are invited to share their views on the successes and challenges of past reviews (e.g., topics, structure, time frames, and recommendations). Input on how to shape a refreshed review system will also be welcome.

All community members – including those new to ICANN Reviews – are encouraged to attend by registering for one, or both, of the sessions:

See Announcement for more information.

Questions for the 25 September 2025 OFB-WG Listening Session:

How frequently would you like the updates with the ALAC RoR CCG Reps to be held: weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.?
How much detail would you like to hear of the RoR CCG discussions to increase your comfort with the process?
What format for the ICANN84 RoR CCG Listening Sessions would you find most useful?
What would be the ideal results of the RoR CCG: no changes, considerable changes, limited changes, etc.

Update Avri Doria- January 08 2026

Currently, the CCG discussions on the envisaged reviews system entail the following buckets:

Bucket A: Intended to mirror the existing accountability and transparency review as well as some elements of other specific reviews. Includes multiple components as listed in the Purpose of Reviews Statement. A Subgroup is testing out the use of the Strategic Plan and Annual Report and is scheduled to report back to the CCG on 20 January.

Bucket B: Assessing SO/ACs and NomCom’s Continuous Improvements Programs to issue recommendations and best practices.

Homework assignment:

Consider nature of outputs of such a review (e.g., to whom are recommendations made, are recommendations binding, are they subject to a process if not accepted by SO/ACs)
Any other thoughts

Reading assignment:

Assessment of CIPs might feed into bucket C (structural review).

Bucket C: Structural Review

To be prompted based on specific criteria/threshold with relatively long cadence.

Homework assignment:

Consider optimal timing
Consider threshold to initiate
Identify what should be in/out of scope for a structural review
Consider output (what would a recommendation look like)
Any other thoughts

Bucket D: Review of Reviews

This is intended to leave a door open for an assessment of the reviews system in the future (including any future reviews that may emerge from CCG recommendations), if and when needed.

Homework assignment:

Consider optimal timing
Consider threshold to initiate
These are partly included as part of ATR reviews. Is that the right place for these?
Any other thoughts

Bucket E: Ad hoc review

This would be to address any issues that may require a review that is not covered by buckets A to D. This requires a clear problem statement with narrowly tailored and defined scope.

Homework assignment:

Consider a potential mechanism for prompting an ad hoc review
Consider what threshold should be
Consider what would be in or out of scope
Any other thoughts

Other:

Homework assignment:

Consider whether CCG should make a recommendation on a mechanism for issues that bubble up but do not necessarily need a review
Any other thoughts