Dear Council colleagues,

 

During our December meeting, the Council voted to “accept the RDRS SC Findings Report as helpful empirical input to inform future deliberations within the GNSO regarding the next steps on the EPDP Phase 2 SSAD Recommendations”. (emphasis added)

 

Action Items: 

1. All councilors to please review the Standing Committee’s recommendation for next steps re: SSAD recommendations for the Board-Council dialogue and determine if the SC’s recommendation for the Board to non-adopt the recommendations and allow the Council to put forward supplemental recommendations that take into account the lessons learned from the RDRS pilot is the right path. (See SC Rec. #5)
2. If any councilor(s) disagrees with the above path, they are asked to share their views and reasoning over the list. 

 

Additional Context and High-Level Next Steps for SSAD Recommendations (Board + GNSO Council Dialogue)

 

As noted during the meeting, the SSAD recommendations are currently with the ICANN Board, who asked ICANN org to launch a two-year pilot program to gather usage and demand data intended to inform the ICANN Board’s decision on next steps (what we now refer to as the Registration Data Request Service or RDRS). The Board acknowledged the main purpose of the RDRS is to collect data about system usage, which would be used to inform future discussions between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board on the pending Recommendations 1–18. 

 

The RDRS Standing Committee was specifically asked to provide “suggestions to the Council for a proposed recommendation(s) to the ICANN Board in relation to the consideration of the SSAD recommendations.”

 

While the RDRS Standing Committee members may have had a difference of opinion as to specific SSAD recommendations, all members agreed that the recommendations need to be adjusted based on the learnings from the RDRS before the Board can adopt them. Specifically, the RDRS Standing Committee is recommending that the Council request the Board to non-adopt the SSAD recommendations in order to kick off the supplemental recommendation process. The Standing Committee envisioned a similar process to the SubPro Small Team+, wherein a dedicated small team (with additional members of the community) work on creating supplemental recommendations for the Council’s (and eventually Board’s) consideration.

 

As noted during the meeting, the Standing Committee was comprised of a representative group who took into account input from many groups (including public comments), considered the available options, and ultimately recommended the Supplemental Recommendation path, noting that this option proved successful with respect to the SubPro recommendations that were non-adopted by the Board.

 

Councilors should therefore consider the following, when reflecting on the action items:

 

• The Standing Committee provides, in Rec. 5, “the SC further recommends that when the GNSO Council and ICANN Board engage in a dialogue, the Council should recommend that the ICANN board reject the SSAD recommendations (as a package) and send them back to the GNSO Council for further action and Supplemental Recommendation.” It is important to note that in recommending the path of non-adoption, the Standing Committee did not intend to throw the SSAD recommendations away. Instead, the Standing Committee believed the recommendations needed some important changes before the Board could adopt them.  Although there are a small number of recommendations which the Standing Committee considers should be kept, even in the case of some of these the Standing Committee also identifies possible minor modifications. 
• If the Council is in agreement with the Standing Committee’s recommendation for the Council to suggest that the Board non-adopt the recommendations to begin the supplemental recommendation path, there is no need to form an informal small team at this stage (as the other recommendations contained in the Standing Committee’s report would eventually be reviewed and considered by the group developing supplemental recommendations, such as a Small Team +). Instead, the Council can discuss proposed Board dialogue talking points and/or takeaways from the ongoing public comment period on the Policy Alignment Analysis in a plenary session during the January Council meeting and/or the upcoming SPS. 
• If, however, Councilors believe an informal small team is needed, please let us know if you would like to volunteer to be a part of the discussion, and Support Staff will be happy to assist.

 

Many thanks