Hello Volker, Thank you for your response. We look forward to discussion on your points within the Accreditation Models document and during the upcoming IRT session. Regarding your questions as to whether this exercise is premature, whether the current policy is fit for purpose, and whether changes are necessary, these are the very questions we will be posing to the GNSO Council via the Threshold Questions as part of this initial phase of implementation planning. The GNSO Council will then provide guidance as appropriate based on its discussion on the Threshold Questions posed and the information provided. We hope to see you at this Thursday’s meeting. Best, Jason Jason Kean Sr. Manager, Reviews and Stakeholder Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: Volker Greimann <volker.greimann@centralnic.com> Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 at 4:51 PM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@icann.org>, Leon Grundmann <leon.grundmann@icann.org>, Jessica Puccio <jessica.puccio@icann.org>, Jason Kean <jason.kean@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Session Thur 15 May @15:30UTC **Please attend for Introduction of Accreditation Models and IRT Task Review** Hi, are we not putting the cart before the horse with this? Should we not first determine whether the current policy is ft for purpose and whether changes are necessary, and if so, which ones? The last time we danced this dance with ICANN (back in the Cyrus days) ICANN came up with a model similar to Model 1 and then opined that the fees it would need to charge would be ridiculously high to an extent that it would disincentivise any potential accreditee from seeking that accreditation, essentially solving the whois privacy "issue" by ensuring there were no more privacy services. Secondly, there is not a single reason why registrars that offer these services would or should be forced to sign another agreement as the RAA is already sufficient in regulating the issues of affiliated providers. This would just add additional costs with negligible benefits and therefore any such model should be rejected. Model 2: I do not understand Model 2 as presented: No new accreditation agreement, but we must obtain an accreditation anyway? In general the basic principle of a light-weight, self-policing model that relies on consensus policy and the RAA is to be supported however. Less is more. Sincerely, Volker Greimann General Counsel & Head of Policy and Compliance - Online Division volker.greimann@centralnic.com Office: +49-172-6367025 Web: www.teaminternet.com Team Internet Group PLC (AIM:TIG). Registered Office: 4th Floor, Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 6BR. Team Internet is a company registered in England and Wales with the company number 8576358. ________________________________ From: Jason Kean via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Sent: 12 May 2025 7:28 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@icann.org>; Leon Grundmann <leon.grundmann@icann.org>; Jessica Puccio <jessica.puccio@icann.org>; Jason Kean <jason.kean@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Session Thur 15 May @15:30UTC **Please attend for Introduction of Accreditation Models and IRT Task Review** Dear IRT, The next IRT meeting is scheduled for Thursday 15 May @15:30 UTC. During this session, we will introduce three accreditation models ICANN org believes align with the PPSAI Final Report policy recommendations’ intent and review the IRT’s task (below) in greater detail. Please make every effort to attend this important session. The IRT’s input will inform Threshold Question B [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqfRaG1yL...>: Can an accreditation model without a formal Accreditation Program remain consistent with the policy recommendations? This is based on the IRT comment asking if the community had ever concluded that a formal Accreditation Program was needed/wanted, having found no evidence in previous discussions. IRT Task: Review and comment on accreditation models [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/14FEv67ER-Qnz2...>. Due Friday, 30 May 2025 IRT input is needed on the models to identify whether any of these options cannot be implemented in accordance with the policy recommendations and why, and where further GNSO guidance is needed. To support your comments, please cite: * the PPSAI Final Report, * discussions in the original PDP Working Group, and/or * discussions in the former IRT where appropriate Avoid IRT comments that: * Identify a personal accreditation model preference, or one based on SO/AC/group affiliation, rather than making an assessment based on the scope given to us by the Final Report. * Identify known implementation challenges which have already been noted and listed for further implementation planning discussions. Reminder: only highlight the specific area of related text when making comments. We look forward to seeing you this Thursday. Best, Jason Jason Kean Sr. Manager, Reviews and Stakeholder Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> Upcoming Schedule: * 15 May @15:30 UTC: IRT meeting introducing the accreditations models and detailing IRT task instructions. * 27-28 May: ICANN 83 Prep Week. The Prep Week schedule [icann83.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann83.sched.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4Q00G60ADf...> will be published on 5 May 2025 * 30 May: Deadline for IRT to submit its comments on the accreditation models. * 11 June: ICANN83 session in Prague from 9:00am - 10:15am local time. The IRT will discuss the input provided on the accreditations models. * To register for ICANN83, visit: https://events.icann.org/icann83/registration [events.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/events.icann.org/icann83/registration__;!...>