Hi all
As a reminder, Councilors are asked to closely review the draft SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team
Assignment
Form and provide suggestions and edits
before our Council meeting on Thursday, 16 April so that we can have a fulsome discussion and resolve any remaining questions or concerns during the meeting. Thank you to those of you who have already provided feedback.
Council small team assignment forms are typically reviewed by the Council and proceed under non-objection, so if you have an objection or concern with the
current text, we ask you to kindly provide alternative text that you can find acceptable before our Council meeting on Thursday, 16 April.
To ensure timely progress on the Supplemental SSAD recommendations and in order to take advantage of the in-person time at ICANN 86 meeting, we plan to
kick off this work and send out the call for volunteers shortly after the Council meeting.
Thank you.
Susan
From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: 07 April 2026 18:23
To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] SSAD Next Steps and draft Assignment Form
Dear Councilors,
As noted in the
recent
message from GNSO Support Staff in reference to the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team, we are circulating a proposed draft
Assignment
Form for the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team for the Council’s review and feedback.
Once finalised, this proposed
Assignment
Form, similar to previous Small Team Assignment Forms, would govern the work of the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team. It includes details and limitations
on the scope of the work, the membership of the group, the timeline of the work, the transparency considerations of the group, et al.
Based on some of the questions and concerns Leadership has received, we have tried to answer some of the questions and address some of the concerns below.
Reminder of how we got here
The Council began discussing possible next steps for the SSAD recommendations beginning in
November,
following the delivery of the RDRS Standing Committee Final Finding Report. The Council continued to discuss the RDRS Standing Committee Report and next steps during the
December
meeting, the
January
meeting, the SPS (where we reached agreement on the path of Supplemental Recommendations), and the
February
meeting.
In discussions with the Board, the Council agreed on this path, in part because this was also the recommendation of the RDRS Standing Committee.
Specifically, the Council discussed the ramifications of following the RDRS Standing Committee’s recommendations during the dialogue with the Board Data
Privacy/Protection Caucus members and noted
the following:
Because we previously agreed on this Supplemental Recommendation path, and this has now been formally assigned to us by the recent Board resolution, my
hope is that we can continue to refine the draft Assignment
Form, in order to incorporate additional guardrails, if these are felt to be needed, and settle on a mutually-agreeable team composition in order to progress
the task efficiently.
Remit of the Council under the Bylaws
Annex A, Section 9 of the
ICANN Bylaws
governs the process for Supplemental Recommendations. Specifically, if the Board determines GNSO policy recommendations are
“not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council
(the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.” Subsequently, “at the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental
Recommendation") to the Board.”
The Bylaws do not dictate the method in which the Council produces Supplemental Recommendations. In the past, specifically for the Subsequent Procedures
Supplemental Recommendations, the Council chose to use a Small Team Plus, which allowed the Council to advance its work with the inclusion of additional subject matter expertise from outside the GNSO Council.
Here, the Council has previously noted the advantage of allowing for external expertise to be included in the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team; specifically,
some Councilors have noted the importance of including expertise from the RDRS Standing Committee, for example. In addition, some Councilors have noted the importance of including members from outside the GNSO that actively participated in the original EPDP
Team and the RDRS Standing Committee, e.g., ALAC, GAC, and SSAC.
Can the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team create new policy?
The remit of the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team is to modify existing policy recommendations, not create new policy. The modification of existing
recommendations (i.e., the eventual Supplemental Recommendations) will be expressly limited by the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team’s draft
Assignment
Form and its corresponding scope. In other words, the creation of Supplemental Recommendations is only an open opportunity for the Council to modify policy
recommendations, grounded in previous work.
The RDRS Standing Committee, which was chartered by the GNSO Council, was tasked with, et al., providing the Council with “specific lessons learned that
should be factored into the consideration of how to proceed with the SSAD (System for Standardized Access/Disclosure) Recommendations and suggestions to the Council for a proposed recommendation(s) to the ICANN Board in relation to the consideration of the
SSAD recommendations.”
In providing its rationale for Recommendation 5, which advised the Council to consider asking the Board to non-adopt the 18 SSAD recommendations, the RDRS
Standing Committee noted it “encourage[s] a willingness to consider modifying parts of the EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations, if needed, as indicated in the below table. The SC considers it important to achieve a functional policy that adapts to the changed
circumstances and benefits from the lessons learned of the RDRS pilot. [Accordingly,] the SC has developed the table below evaluating each of the 18 SSAD policy recommendations considering the RDRS pilot outcomes. It indicates whether each recommendation should
be kept or modified along with rationale rooted in the pilot’s evidence and the Standing Committee’s considerations in [conducting its assignment from the Council.]”
In light of the above, the Standing Committee’s, ICANN Board’s, and the Council’s expectation would be that the EPDP recommendations would be modified,
using the provided guidance, to allow for important and necessary improvements to the existing SSAD recommendations. For the avoidance of doubt, the SC’s guidance on the potential modifications is simply that. It serves as a valuable starting point for the
SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team, given the substantial consideration that the SC has already given to this issue, but does not determine the outcome.
Can all GNSO Councilors participate?
Yes, any interested and committed GNSO Councilor is invited to participate in the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team.
What is the expected time commitment?
Because the Council
has committed
to complete the work on Supplemental Recommendations “in months, not years,” the group will be meeting regularly to progress on this work. At minimum, it is likely that the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team will meet once per week for up to 90 minutes,
with a possibility of increasing the cadence if the need arises.
Additionally, we understand that ICANN Support Staff has been working on providing the group with dedicated face-to-face time at ICANN86. In light of this,
ICANN org is currently working on organizing a one-day in-person workshop on
Sunday, 7 June before ICANN86 officially begins on Monday. If you think you are interested in participating in the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team, please make note of this date. Councilors who choose to participate in the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations
Team will be granted an early arrival date to allow for participation in this workshop. More information to follow soon.
While this task will require a time commitment from the participants, we hope that tight scoping and the limitations in place on the breadth of modification
will assist in controlling this as much as possible.
Other than the time commitment, is there anything else I should know if I would like to participate?
Per the draft
Assignment
Form, the SSAD Supplemental Recommendations Team is expected to consider several inputs as it develops Supplemental Recommendations, as these inputs serve
as important boundaries on the level of modifications to the recommendations, including:
Councilors interested in participating are expected to be familiar with the
18
original SSAD recommendations as well as the above documents.
What is the Council’s role at this stage?
We understand the importance of scoping this work appropriately and mitigating concerns from across the Council and Community. Accordingly, we ask that
Councilors closely review the draft Assignment
Form and provide suggestions and edits
before our Council meeting on 16 April so that we can have a fulsome discussion on any remaining questions or concerns with the
Assignment
Form, with the goal of kicking off this work shortly after the meeting.
Thank you.
Susan
|
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy
|
|
28 Little Russell Street, |
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended
recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”)
does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ
Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291
and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc.
dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company
number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information
see www.comlaude.com