Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 25 January 2026

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.01

The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables it to fulfill its role and execute its mission. Since its inception, the SSAC has invited to its membership individuals with deep knowledge and experience in technical and security areas that are critical to the security and stability of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.

The SSAC's continued operation as a competent body is dependent on the accumulation of talented subject matter experts who have consented to volunteer their time and energies to the execution of the SSAC mission.

The SSAC currently comprises 37 members. The appointment of the proposed candidates will increase the total membership to 40. In accordance with the SSAC's established new member selection procedures, the SSAC Membership Committee formally evaluated each candidate through a comprehensive review of application materials, skills questionnaire, and an interview to ensure their expertise and commitment align with the SSAC's operational requirements. The SSAC Membership Committee assessed prospective candidates against the collective skills of the current SSAC and identified gaps to ensure the SSAC maintains necessary technical and policy capabilities. The professional experience and qualifications for the three proposed candidates are detailed below.

Wes Hardaker is an Internet Standards Engineer at Google. He is actively involved as an affiliate researcher with USC/ISI and is helping operate USC/ISI "b.root-servers.net" DNS Root Server. Wes is the Root Server System Advisory Committee's current Liaison to the ICANN Board. Wes has published over 20 IETF RFCs, multiple academic papers, and has been a significant contributor to many RSSAC documents, serving on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), RSSAC, and as multiple IETF working group chairs.

Sourena Maroofi is a DNS Researcher at KOR Labs, whose research has centered on DNS infrastructures and domain names. He has extensive experience with DNS abuse: he is the CEO and founder of URLAbuse (a provider of blocklist feeds), and he designed and implemented bulkDNS, a high-performance, open source DNS scanner designed for large-scale Internet measurement. Sourena also has experience in Internet governance, including a study on DNS abuse conducted for the European Commission and the ICANN Office of the Chief Technology Officer guided INFERMAL project.

Raffaele Sommese is an assistant professor at the University of Twente. His research focuses on Internet resilience and stability. As part of his current research interests, Raffaele is investigating strategies to enhance transparency in the DNS ecosystem to prevent abuse and malicious behaviors. He has also been involved in the DNS OARC BCP initiative that aims to distill a set of actionable best practices for DNS operators, and has advised the European Commission on issues involving the .eu top-level domain. Raffaele was also an invited guest on the recently published SAC132, The Domain Name System Runs on Free and Open Source Software.

This resolution is an organizational administrative function for which no public comment is required. The appointment of the SSAC members is in the public interest and in furtherance of ICANN's mission as it contributes to the commitment of the ICANN to strengthen the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.02

ICANN's Contracting and Disbursement Policy has not been updated in over 10 years. Updating the policy now is necessary to help improve clarity, document existing practices, and better align Officer approval limits to current and likely future economic circumstances. In particular, raising Officer approval limits will help streamline the internal approvals processes and help make them more efficient. The change in Officer approval limits is not expected to create any concerns as several internal controls, cross-checks and internal systems have been improved and enhanced over the last decade plus.

Adopting the suggested modifications to the ICANN Contracting and Disbursement Policy is in the public interest and consistent with ICANN's mission because it will assist the organization with more efficient management of ICANN's expenses.

This action is likely to have a positive financial impact on ICANN by streamlining processes and freeing resources for other initiatives undertaken by ICANN.

This action will not have an impact on the security, stability, or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.03

While ICANN continues to examine the overall structure of the Public Meetings and conferences it conducts – including the number, type and geographic rotation of those meetings – it is important to identify and publish proposed dates for ICANN Meetings through 2033. Publishing the Meeting dates is important to prevent conflicts with other community events, as well as to allow ICANN Meeting participants to plan for their attendance. This is a key part of the recommendations established in 2014 by the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG).

The proposed dates for ICANN Meetings in 2029 – 2033 were selected based on careful avoidance of important holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe. Similarly, every effort was made to identify and prevent scheduling conflicts with other community events. The dates reflect the timing and duration for ICANN Public Meetings as recommended by the MSWG. Staff recommendations were then developed and subsequently published for a 54-day public comment period. Updates were made in response to the comments, resulting in the list of dates approved by the Board today.

There will be a financial impact on ICANN in hosting these meetings and providing travel support as necessary, as well as on the community in incurring costs to travel to the ICANN meetings. Given that ICANN is committed to having regular meetings, the financial and resource impact of today's decision is not anticipated to vary significantly from the regular operation of ICANN meetings.

This action is in furtherance of ICANN's mission and in the public interest as it allows the multistakeholder community to plan in advance for participation in ICANN Public Meetings. This action is in support of ICANN's Strategic Plan Strategic Objective 1 on evolving and promoting ICANN's multistakeholder model.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.04

What is the proposal being considered?

The initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process on Article 18, Section 18.2(b) is the next step in implementation of Recommendation 4 of the Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2). The Board accepted this and the other recommendations of the IFR2 on 14 September 2025. ICANN org is still planning for the implementation of the other three recommendations. The IANA Naming Function Reviews are the tool through which the ICANN community reviews the performance of ICANN's affiliate Public Technical Identifiers' (PTI) performance of the IANA Naming Function against the contractual requirements set forth in the IANA Naming Function Contract.

This recommendation will change how ICANN measures the frequency of the periodic (i.e., regularly occurring) IANA Naming Function Reviews, which are mandated under Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws. Currently, these periodic IANA Naming Function Reviews are required to happen every five years, measured from the convening of the previous iteration of the IANA Naming Function Review. The IFR2 recommended that while IANA Naming Function Reviews should still happen on a five-year cycle, that cycle should be measured from the date that the previous IANA Naming Function Review team submitted its final report to the ICANN Board of Directors. This updated cadence allows time for each IANA Naming Function Review team to take the time necessary to conduct its review and complete the required community consultations to develop its recommendations, while also giving time for those recommendations to be implemented prior to convening the next review.

As an illustration, the IFR2 was convened on 10 September 2023. Its final report was delivered to the Board on 4 September 2025. If the Bylaws are not updated, the next periodic IANA Naming Function Review must be convened by 9 September 2028, less than three years from the time the IFR2 completed its work and submitted its report. Under the proposed update, the next IANA Naming Function Review would be required to convene by 3 September 2030, allowing up to five years between reviews, and more time for the next team to observe the impacts of the implementation of the IFR2 recommendations.

This extension of time would create a new outer time limit on when future periodic IANA Naming Function Reviews must be convened. If there are circumstances that show that an earlier periodic IANA Naming Function Review would be beneficial, the proposed updates would allow for that to happen. Further, nothing within the proposed update impacts the ability for the ICANN community to call for a "Special" IANA Naming Function Review, which can be convened "to address any deficiency, problem or other other issue that has adversely affected PTI's performance under the IANA Naming Function Contract." (Article 18, Section 18.12(a).)

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendment to change the cadence of the reviews was recommended by the IFR2, which is comprised of representatives from across the ICANN community, including customers of the IANA Naming Function. The IFR2 sought public comment on its report before submitting it to the Board.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the IFR2's Final Report and the proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendment. The text of the proposed Amendment has been updated to conform with other sections of the ICANN Bylaws.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Initiating the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process will bring a positive community impact as it is directly responsive to the recommendations arising out Bylaws-mandated review team. Allowing the ICANN community to provide inputs on the update to the cadence of future IANA Naming Function Reviews also supports future community planning for future cycles.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in initiating the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process as there are required community processes that must be observed. Acting on recommendations from the IANA Naming Function Reviews supports ICANN in meeting its strategic goal 3.3 to "Deliver and Enhance the IANA Functions to Meet Evolving Community Needs".

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process supports and advances the public interest in being responsive to community recommendation. This also supports ICANN's delivery of its key technical mission.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

The next step in the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process is to seek public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.01.25.05 – 2026.01.25.06

What is the proposal being considered?

The initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process on Article 17 and the posting of the proposed amendments to the Customer Standing Committee Charter are the next steps in completing the Board's role in supporting the implementation of the recommendations of the Second CSC Effectiveness Review. The CSC plays a key role in operational oversight of the IANA naming functions and ensuring continued satisfactory performance of the naming functions for its direct customers. Developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, the role of the CSC is defined at Article 17 of the ICANN Bylaws, and is supplemented by a Board-approved Charter.

The Second CSC Effectiveness Review identified two areas of recommendations which require ICANN Board involvement. First, the Review identified a need to allow the groups appointing members and liaisons to the CSC to identify alternates. This change requires amending the ICANN Bylaws provisions on composition and voting, as well as updating to the CSC Charter to provide clarity on the roles of and rights of alternates. In addition, the Review identified that future CSC Effectiveness Reviews do not need to occur on the two-year cycle that was initially defined in 2016, and recommended a more sustainable cadence of every five years for this review. To effectuate this change, the ICANN Bylaws must be updated. All parts of Bylaws Article 17 on the CSC are designated as Fundamental Bylaws under the ICANN Bylaws.

The specific changes to both the Bylaws and the CSC Charter that are presented to the Board were developed in coordination with the two groups of direct customers of the naming function, including representatives of the ccNSO and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group. This coordination assured that the proposed updates met the spirit of the recommendations and also addressed practical issues of voting and quorum that could be impacted by the introduction of alternates, while streamlining and reducing opportunities for inconsistency between the ICANN Bylaws and the CSC Charter.

The next step for each of these items is seeking public comment – the Board is not approving any updates today. The public comment will be integrated with the public comment on the proposed updates to Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws, on the cadence for the IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs). As the CSC and the IFRs are both tools related to the community oversight of the performance of the IANA naming functions, and each Bylaws change is addressing the periodicity of reviews, ICANN will coordinate the comment period, future Board action, and the Empowered Community approval processes (if appropriate) on these items to streamline this effort. Further, the updates to the CSC Charter are closely tethered to any Bylaws amendments on the CSC's composition.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments and Charter updates are outputs of the CSC's Effectiveness Review, which required validation through the CSC processes including the direct customers of the IANA naming function. In addition, the ccNSO and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group were consulted directly to vet the proposed updates prior to presentation to the Board.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the Second CSC Effectiveness Review Final Report, the proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendment and the proposed CSC Charter Amendment.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Initiating the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process and CSC Charter amendment consideration will bring a positive community impact as it is directly responsive to the recommendations arising out of a Bylaws-mandated community effectiveness review.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in initiating the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process as there are required community processes that must be observed. In coordinating future action with the Bylaws Amendment process initiated by the Board on the IANA Naming Functions Review, ICANN seeks to mitigate the impact of duplicative processes. Acting on recommendations from the CSC Effectiveness Review supports ICANN in meeting its strategic goal 3.3 to "Deliver and Enhance the IANA Functions to Meet Evolving Community Needs".

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process and the related Charter updates supports and advances the public interest in being responsive to community recommendations. This also supports ICANN's delivery of its key technical mission.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

The next step in the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process and in updating the Charter is to seek public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.07

Today the Board is initiating a Standard Bylaws Amendment so that it can receive public comment from the community on a proposed pause on ICANN's obligations to conduct Specific Reviews while the community conversation of the evolution of reviews is proceeding. Under the ICANN Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.6, ICANN is required to conduct three of the four Specific Reviews (Accountability and Transparency (ATRT); Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) and the Registration Directory System (RDS)) every five years, measured from the convening of the prior cycle's review team.¹ The challenges posed by this schedule have been well documented, including issues of community overload in overlapping reviews, as well as the lack of sufficient time to implement recommendations between review team cycles.

ICANN was supposed to convene ATRT4 in 2023, and has subsequently twice deferred the initiation of ATRT4, including in May 2025, to allow a community dialogue to focus on the future of reviews. The third iterations of the SSR and RDS reviews are also both deferred from their Bylaws-mandated starts due to a pending ATRT3 recommendation that the ATRT4 should evaluate the timing and future of each of those reviews.

In response to the Board's May 2025 resolution on deferral of the ATRT4 and convening a community dialogue on reviews, parts of the community pushed ICANN to consider a Bylaws amendment that would pause ICANN's obligations to initiate the Specific Reviews. The community also expressed an expectation that any further deferral of Specific Reviews be time-bound.

In furtherance of the Board's May 2025 resolution, the community and Board chartered the Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (Reviews CCG), with the community, Board and ICANN staff members working together to produce recommendations on how to evolve and improve ICANN's review mechanisms. The Reviews CCG effort continues to progress.

The proposed Transition Article, which would be added at Article 27, does the following:

• Leaves the full language of Article 4, Section 4.6 intact in the event the community dialogue on the evolution of reviews does not result in proposed updates to the ICANN Bylaws;

• Establishes a 12-month deferral of ICANN's obligations to conduct reviews, extendable to up to 24 months in limited and defined events, such as pending consideration of community recommendations on reviews; and

• Establishes a sustainable schedule for the re-introduction of Specific Reviews even if the Bylaws at Article 4, Section 4.6 are not amended.

A Standard Bylaws Amendment Process is required to complete this amendment, which includes Board initiation of the Bylaws amendment process; public comment; Board consideration after public comment; and opportunity for Empowered Community to reject the Board's approval of the Bylaws change.

ICANN presented variations of this Transition Article to the SO/AC leadership during ICANN84 to test if the proposed path might be an acceptable solution. The language is now ready for broader community consideration through the public comment process.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the proposed Standard Bylaws Amendment.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Initiating the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process will bring a positive community impact, as it is directly responsive to community requests for a path to bring ICANN into compliance with the Bylaws on initiating reviews.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in initiating the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process as there are required community processes that must be observed. This action supports ICANN in meeting its strategic objective of evolving and promoting ICANN's multistakeholder model, as it allows for the community dialogue on reviews to continue without the interruption of the initiation of a review that may no longer be seen as fit for purpose.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The initiation of the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process supports and advances the public interest as it demonstrates ICANN's responsiveness and intent to act in line with its Bylaws obligations.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

The next step in the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process is to seek public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.08

Why is the Board addressing the issue and what is the proposal being considered?

The New gTLD Program: 2026 Round plan for managing any surplus or deficit as a result of the New gTLD Program (Plan) sets out the approach for managing any surplus or deficit as a result of the New gTLD Program.  For the New gTLD Program to be fully funded and cost neutral, per the policy recommendations, ICANN has taken the approach that the rounds in themselves (2012 Round and the 2026 Round) are implemented with the cost recovery principle as their basis. The Plan, furthermore, aligns with the relevant SubPro affirmations, recommendations, and implementation guidance, whereby implementation guidance 15.6 relating to excess refunds to applicants is partially implemented.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The ICANN Board's adoption of the Plan is consistent with ICANN's mission and is in the public interest as it allows ICANN to ensure that the New gTLD Program is fully funded, cost neutral, and able to manage any excess fees collected or budget shortfalls experienced.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

The Board action to approve the Plan will not in and of itself have a fiscal impact, but to the extent there is a surplus or deficit, there would be a fiscal impact which would be handled in accordance with the Plan.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

This action is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment, noting that the SubPro policy recommendations and implementation guidance did go through the different public comment requirements associated with the GNSO Policy Development Process.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.01.25.09 – 2026.01.25.10

In order to incorporate several key capabilities required to operate the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook and policy obligations, ICANN has a continued need for both the rights to use the platform as well as the needed professional service resources in coordination with one another. Without these capabilities, ICANN cannot timely execute the core phases of the program after application submission acceptance, creating potential operational risk to the program.

The vendor is delivering a complex application under compressed and evolving conditions. The program's timelines, shifting policy/service requirements and dependency delays across other streams resulted in multiple out-of-sequence components during the build phase. This approach enabled ICANN to make the application window timeline viable, but ultimately required ICANN and the vendor to prioritize developing application window-critical modules rather than at the expense of post-application window workflow.

While the initial TLD Application Management System (TAMS) budget was based on the scope known in December 2023, several critical elements expanded during development and policy implementation. These items are mandatory for the 2026 Round to operate correctly and transparently, but have expanded the system's functional footprint beyond the original estimates. To accommodate, the development vendor expanded the size of the team and increased the burn rate for an extended period, in addition to extending through the readiness window. To ensure April 2026 opening is not jeopardized, the vendor's team will be intentionally kept at a higher staffing level through readiness not only to ensure stability of the system, but also to maintain continuity of the team throughout the work. This approach allows ICANN to meet its commitment for opening date, but increased vendor costs compared to the original budget timeline assumptions.

Accordingly, ICANN staff and the BFC recommended that the ICANN Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, contract extensions not to exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information], for rights to use a platform and ancillary services, and to assist ICANN in the development of applications that will work with the platform needed for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round. The professional services will augment the Engineering and IT team capabilities in support of the 2026 Round infrastructure development work with the selected vendor.

This decision is in the furtherance of ICANN's mission and the support of public interest to support the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system (DNS) by ensuring that there is a fully resourced engineering and IT team able to support the organization in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY26 budget and will be for future budgets as well.

As noted above, this action is intended to have a positive impact on security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.01.25.11 – 2026.01.25.12

Implementation and operation of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round will require a significant number of external vendors (Service Providers) that will perform work throughout the course of the program. Some of these Service Provider contracts likely will exceed US$500,000.

ICANN's current Contracting and Disbursement Policy limits ICANN Officers from contracting for or disbursing more than US$500,000.00 per obligation without Board approval. With the potential level of expenses that ICANN might incur with any one or more of the Service Providers, the contracting and disbursement limits of Officers in the Disbursement Policy could be exceeded frequently during the implementation and operations of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round.

Accordingly, to ensure that timely obligations are made and satisfied with the Service Providers, it is appropriate to take this action now and have the Board's advanced approval to undertake contractual obligations for contracts that are not yet ready to review individually, so long as the contract amounts are covered by the previously Board-approved budget amounts. The Board will be presented with requests for advance approval of service contracts in batches on a going forward basis. With this action, the President and CEO, or his designee(s), can enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, all contracts exceeding US$500,000 with all Services Providers for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round so long as the contract and disbursement amounts are included in Batch #2 of the advance contracting and disbursement approval requests.

The table below shows a breakdown of the services included in Batch #2 and the not-to-exceed contracts, [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. The total approval request for [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] in potential contract and related disbursements is included in the budget estimates for 2,000 applications.

ICANN Board's approval of entering into these contractual obligations is in the furtherance of ICANN's mission and the support of public interest to support the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system by ensuring that ICANN can timely contract with and pay the Service Providers that are supporting the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round overall budget and set application fee.

This action is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability, or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.01.25.13 – 2026.01.25.14

The selected audit firm and its member firms have been ICANN's independent audit firms since the audit of fiscal year 2022. ICANN's staff undertook an evaluation of the FY25 Audit Firm and presented a report of that evaluation to the Committee for consideration.

Based on the report from ICANN staff and the Audit Committee's evaluation of the work performed during last year's audit, the Audit Committee has recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to engage the selected firm and its member firms as ICANN's independent audit firm(s) for fiscal year 2026 for any annual independent audit requirements in any jurisdiction.

This furthers ICANN's accountability to its Mission and processes, and the results of the independent audit firm's work will be publicly available. Taking this decision is both consistent with ICANN's Mission and in the public interest as the engagement of an independent audit firm is in fulfilment of ICANN's obligations to undertake an audit of ICANN's financial statements and helps serve ICANN's stakeholders in a more accountable manner.

This decision will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, which is accounted for in the FY26 ICANN Operating Plan and Budget and in the Draft ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget. This decision should not have any direct impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.01.25.15

It is good governance for an organization to have annual objectives, including specified key results, key performance indicators and milestones to be achieved. It is further good governance to ensure these annual objectives are updated throughout the year to reflect changes in circumstances. Doing so helps ensure that the Organizational Objectives remain achievable and are consistent with the mission and strategy of the organization as circumstances evolve, which is clearly within the public interest.

In the adopted Organizational Objectives for FY26, Objective 3 references the progression of the Pilot Holistic Review (PHR) and the fourth Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT4). However, as the Board at its meeting on the 19 May 2025 decided to defer ATRT4, as well as conclude the PHR and instead initiate a Cross Community Group on Review of Reviews (CCG) to review the ICANN review mechanisms, the deliverables under Objective 3 have become obsolete as they have been overtaken by subsequent events.

The President and CEO has developed a new set of deliverables in support of the CCG and the continued Continuous Improvement Program as per the Reference Materials, Attachment A. The Board has reviewed that new set of deliverables and agrees with the Compensation Committee's recommendation to approve the Update to Organizational Objectives for FY26.

The decision to adopt the updated Organizational Objectives for FY26 will not have a direct fiscal impact on ICANN outside of the impact that the overall ICANN FY26 Strategic and Operating Plan will have, as the objectives are directly linked to those plans.

This decision will not have an impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.