Hi all, The public comment proceedings envisaged by the ConsensusPolicy Implementation Framework (v2018) (CPIF) during the Analyse and Design phase are open to all, including those who are normally involved in the ICANN community. ~~ Analyze and Design: GDD staff will work with the IRT, if convened, during this stage to develop and complete new Consensus Policy language (if required) and any new service that may be needed. Public comments regarding the implementation will also be solicited at this stage. GDD staff, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable), will determine whether the proposed implementation should be posted for public comment (there is a strong presumption that items will be posted for public comment). If so, the proposed consensus policy language and/or details of the new service as well as the implementation plan will be posted for public comment. GDD staff will adjust the proposed policy language based on public comments, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable). GDD staff will complete all required elements of new proposed service based on public comments, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable) after consulting with relevant service providers. If the final policy language and/or proposed service is materially changed following the initial public comment period, the GDD staff will seek public comments on the updated language/service before it is implemented. ~~ To me, these steps would satisfy Rec#14.3 but happy to hear other Councilors' thoughts. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent At:2021 Aug. 21 (Sat.) 07:11 Recipient:Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Hi Marie: I also find this requirement for extra-ICANN-community consultation by the IRT to be unwieldy. My understanding is that the ALAC inserted this section during the “can’t live with” reviews of the recommendation by the Phase2 team; formal objections to it were made by the Registrars and ISPCP (and I think ICANN staff); but made it into the report as a recommendation nonetheless; then approved by the Council. (I gladly stand to be corrected by anyone knowing better.) I don’t know if there is space for a corrective action discussion (looking backwards in time at this and forwards in time for working group products coming down the pike). Thanks for picking up on this. Kurt On Aug 20, 2021, at 11:28 AM, Marie Pattullo - AIM via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Philippe, and thanks Janis for the report. May I please ask for some clarification on behalf of the BC re this part of 14:3: “In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment and interact with the IRT. This input should help inform the IRT deliberations on this topic”. Do we have any practical suggestions about how non-community members could interact with the IRT? We all know how much time and effort any IRT demands of its members - and of course IRTs are populated by all stakeholders. I’d have thought that by default, anyone who knows that there is such a thing, and how to engage with it, would be within the ICANN community. Who are they aiming to attract, and – concretely - how? Is the IRT really the best place for non-community participation? Best to both, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of philippe.fouquart--- via council Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2021 10:24 To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com>; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Dear Councilors, A reminder to provide any input you may have on this report and the comment on EPDP Ph2 recommendation 14.3. Please do so by the end of the week. If you would like this on an AOB agenda item on Thursday, please let the list know. Thanks. All the best, Philippe From: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 12:25 PM To: 'council@gnso.icann.org' <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: 'Janis Karklins' <karklinsj@gmail.com>; gnso-secs@icann.org; 'Caitlin Tubergen' <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; 'Yuko Green' <yuko.green@icann.org> Subject: SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Dear Councilors, Please find the report from our liaison to the SSAD ODP. Thanks for this, Janis. In particular note the question raised about recommendation 14.3 and transparency around the SSAD funding and financials aspects, and the associated response. Comments and feedback are obviously welcome. Regards, Philippe From: Janis Karklins [mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:24 AM To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org> Subject: Dear Philippe, Pls see below my next report to the GNSO Council which I submit in my role as the liaison to the SSAD ODP Team. Thank you for circulating it to the Councilors. Best regards JK Dear Councilors: I am including a short summary of my latest monthly meeting with ICANN org’s SSAD ODP team from 3 August below. I informed the SSAD ODP team about my short presentation during the recent GNSO Council meeting on 22 July. I explained that I provided my responses to ICANN org’s assumptions regarding the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations in advance of the meeting and asked the Council if anyone had questions or concerns. Having heard no concerns, I thanked the Council for its time and committed to provide updates regarding future meetings with the SSAD ODP Team and future questions regarding ICANN org’s assumptions. The SSAD ODP team informed me that multiple surveys are out for response. Both the survey to Contracted Parties and the survey to the wider ICANN community have an updated deadline of mid-August due to low participation. A separate survey to the GAC has a response deadline on 17 September. Because the team is waiting for survey responses during the month of August, the next community webinar date will likely occur in September. Lastly, the SSAD ODP Team identified another question and assumption they wished to discuss with me regarding recommendation 14. The assumption and my response is annexed to this message for your information. The SSAD ODP Team plans, pending no objection from the GNSO Council, to proceed with its work on the basis of this assumption (and the previously articulated assumptions) and my response thereto. The verified assumptions will be used by the ODP Team as it works on an assessment to inform the Board’s review of the EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations. I plan to meet with the SSAD ODP team again in early September and will provide another update at that time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards JK Question/Assumption Liaison's comment Recommendation 14.3 states: “The prospective users of the SSAD, as determined based on the implementation of the accreditation process and Identity Providers to be used, should be consulted on setting usage fees for the SSAD. In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment and interact with the IRT. This input should help inform the IRT deliberations on this topic.” Recommendation 14.4 further notes that the SSAD should be a self-sustaining system. Assumption: ICANN org assumes the high-level financial details related to a self-sustaining SSAD will be shared with the ICANN community for the purposes of transparency, and the overall cost of running the system will be determined by ICANN org to ensure self-sustainability. Assumption is correct. The fees level may need to be reviewed over time based on acquired experience running the SSAD. Such a review should be evidence based and subject of transparent process of consultations with ICANN stakeholders and SSAD users outside ICANN community. For sake of accuracy: 14.4 states: “The SSAD SHOULD NOT be considered a profit-generating platform for ICANN or the contracted parties.” Notion of self-sustainability does not exclude possibility of profit generation which goes against the adopted policy. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you._______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi everyone, Just to close the loop on this and this point on rec #14.3, we reviewed this within leadership, and we have this understanding that the public comments of the CPIF would indeed address the need for inputs to the IRT from potential SSAD requestors. If you consider we are missing something please let the list know. All the best, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels via council Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 10:45 PM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Cc: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com>; council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org; council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 I am not speaking for the ALAC here but I don't think it is as controversial as it may sound. Given my antecedents, I can offer a view to explain the idea of a public comment period open to non-ICANN Community members. The ALAC is vested in bye-law as representing the interests of ordinary Internet users. [There is still talk as to whether registrants take - or is meant to take - priority in this construct.] The interpretation I am socialized to is that even as the ALAC are servants of the billions who know nothing about ICANN, the ALAC is duty bound to seek every opportunity for engagement beyond the 15 on slate by ensuring the ICANN message is as widely dispersed as possible. Development of a policy that affects the billions provides a surface area for engagement. The ALAC would be seized of the responsibility to push notice of public comments on that policy implementation beyond - as one of my colleagues would refer to it - 'the ICANN bubble". CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:16 PM Pam Little via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, The public comment proceedings envisaged by the ConsensusPolicy Implementation Framework (v2018) <https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf> (CPIF) during the Analyse and Design phase are open to all, including those who are normally involved in the ICANN community. ~~ * Analyze and Design: GDD staff will work with the IRT, if convened, during this stage to develop and complete new Consensus Policy language (if required) and any new service that may be needed. Public comments regarding the implementation will also be solicited at this stage. GDD staff, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable), will determine whether the proposed implementation should be posted for public comment (there is a strong presumption that items will be posted for public comment). If so, the proposed consensus policy language and/or details of the new service as well as the implementation plan will be posted for public comment. GDD staff will adjust the proposed policy language based on public comments, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable). GDD staff will complete all required elements of new proposed service based on public comments, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable) after consulting with relevant service providers. If the final policy language and/or proposed service is materially changed following the initial public comment period, the GDD staff will seek public comments on the updated language/service before it is implemented. ~~ To me, these steps would satisfy Rec#14.3 but happy to hear other Councilors' thoughts. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:Sender%3Acouncil@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Sent At:2021 Aug. 21 (Sat.) 07:11 Recipient:Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:Cc%3Agnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>; Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject:Re: [council] SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Hi Marie: I also find this requirement for extra-ICANN-community consultation by the IRT to be unwieldy. My understanding is that the ALAC inserted this section during the “can’t live with” reviews of the recommendation by the Phase2 team; formal objections to it were made by the Registrars and ISPCP (and I think ICANN staff); but made it into the report as a recommendation nonetheless; then approved by the Council. (I gladly stand to be corrected by anyone knowing better.) I don’t know if there is space for a corrective action discussion (looking backwards in time at this and forwards in time for working group products coming down the pike). Thanks for picking up on this. Kurt On Aug 20, 2021, at 11:28 AM, Marie Pattullo - AIM via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Philippe, and thanks Janis for the report. May I please ask for some clarification on behalf of the BC re this part of 14:3: “In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment and interact with the IRT. This input should help inform the IRT deliberations on this topic”. Do we have any practical suggestions about how non-community members could interact with the IRT? We all know how much time and effort any IRT demands of its members - and of course IRTs are populated by all stakeholders. I’d have thought that by default, anyone who knows that there is such a thing, and how to engage with it, would be within the ICANN community. Who are they aiming to attract, and – concretely - how? Is the IRT really the best place for non-community participation? Best to both, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of philippe.fouquart--- via council Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2021 10:24 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Dear Councilors, A reminder to provide any input you may have on this report and the comment on EPDP Ph2 recommendation 14.3. Please do so by the end of the week. If you would like this on an AOB agenda item on Thursday, please let the list know. Thanks. All the best, Philippe From: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 12:25 PM To: 'council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: 'Janis Karklins' <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; 'Caitlin Tubergen' <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>; 'Yuko Green' <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: SSAD ODP liaison report - August 2021 Dear Councilors, Please find the report from our liaison to the SSAD ODP. Thanks for this, Janis. In particular note the question raised about recommendation 14.3 and transparency around the SSAD funding and financials aspects, and the associated response. Comments and feedback are obviously welcome. Regards, Philippe From: Janis Karklins [mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:24 AM To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: Dear Philippe, Pls see below my next report to the GNSO Council which I submit in my role as the liaison to the SSAD ODP Team. Thank you for circulating it to the Councilors. Best regards JK Dear Councilors: I am including a short summary of my latest monthly meeting with ICANN org’s SSAD ODP team from 3 August below. I informed the SSAD ODP team about my short presentation during the recent GNSO Council meeting on 22 July. I explained that I provided my responses to ICANN org’s assumptions regarding the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations in advance of the meeting and asked the Council if anyone had questions or concerns. Having heard no concerns, I thanked the Council for its time and committed to provide updates regarding future meetings with the SSAD ODP Team and future questions regarding ICANN org’s assumptions. The SSAD ODP team informed me that multiple surveys are out for response. Both the survey to Contracted Parties and the survey to the wider ICANN community<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ssadodpcommunity> have an updated deadline of mid-August due to low participation. A separate survey to the GAC<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/odp-ssad/2021-July/000014.html> has a response deadline on 17 September. Because the team is waiting for survey responses during the month of August, the next community webinar date will likely occur in September. Lastly, the SSAD ODP Team identified another question and assumption they wished to discuss with me regarding recommendation 14. The assumption and my response is annexed to this message for your information. The SSAD ODP Team plans, pending no objection from the GNSO Council, to proceed with its work on the basis of this assumption (and the previously articulated assumptions) and my response thereto. The verified assumptions will be used by the ODP Team as it works on an assessment to inform the Board’s review of the EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations. I plan to meet with the SSAD ODP team again in early September and will provide another update at that time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards JK Question/Assumption Liaison's comment Recommendation 14.3 states: “The prospective users of the SSAD, as determined based on the implementation of the accreditation process and Identity Providers to be used, should be consulted on setting usage fees for the SSAD. In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment and interact with the IRT. This input should help inform the IRT deliberations on this topic.” Recommendation 14.4 further notes that the SSAD should be a self-sustaining system. Assumption: ICANN org assumes the high-level financial details related to a self-sustaining SSAD will be shared with the ICANN community for the purposes of transparency, and the overall cost of running the system will be determined by ICANN org to ensure self-sustainability. Assumption is correct. The fees level may need to be reviewed over time based on acquired experience running the SSAD. Such a review should be evidence based and subject of transparent process of consultations with ICANN stakeholders and SSAD users outside ICANN community. For sake of accuracy: 14.4 states: “The SSAD SHOULD NOT be considered a profit-generating platform for ICANN or the contracted parties.” Notion of self-sustainability does not exclude possibility of profit generation which goes against the adopted policy. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.