Hello All, Please see the attached action items, decisions, and notes for the 4 September 2025 meeting #3 of the PPSAI Small Team. Please note that our next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 11 September at 13:00 UTC (one-hour earlier than today’s call). Action Items: AI: Paul to add TQ B Strawperson argument to existing strawpeople including Model 4: accreditation by association™ AI: ALL – comment, edit, and critique strawpeople here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SOk8cJzH8LZBI-oqfHbXJ9AdLD8ORHylcm0cI00-... AI: ALL – Review TQ A questions and responses holistically now that there is a wider understanding of all the TQs Notes * Jason Kean, ICANN org, gave a slide overview of TQ B with the three original models and a 4th possible model. He also shared the models document<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpageattachments.action?...> * Model 4 would likely be excluded based on the policy recommendations as “no accreditation”, but it was noted that this is essentially how it operates currently * Reiterated that this is a Board resolution that Council approved from a PDP. IRT does not need instructions on how to implement this, only whether these would be acceptable for them to choose from * Model 1 is unnecessary and overly cumbersome. 2 and 3 look good, and 4 would likely require a large policy effort. * Current definition the ST is adopting is that P/P providers are only those affiliated with registrars. This would streamline and apply to 90% of cases * Accreditation could be easily baked into the RAA and does not need a separate vehicle or system in place. * Mary Wong, ICANN org, WG during the PDP understood that practically it will be difficult to be accredited if there is zero relationship. Recognized that practically as a result the accreditation program would attract those providers that have relationships. The WG did not preclude, and unaffiliated provider decided that it wanted to be accredited. Practical difficulties but left that question open. * Accreditation as anticipated by the Board resolution is satisfied as long as P/P provider is affiliated with the registrar and the registrar is prepared to stand in the shoes for enforcement purposes. Model 4 would be the registrar on the hot seat. There would be no contract between ICANN org and P/P enforcement. * Summary: All four models are implementable under the policy so long as all four models end up with ICANN’s ability to enforce the rest of the policy. Model 4 anticipates the registrar would be subject to enforcement on behalf of affiliated P/P. Models 1-3 assume it would be directly with P/P. Slight preference for not model 1. * Although unaffiliated providers have not been an issue, the policy should not close off this possibility that this could be a business model in the future. * For the direct question asked of Council, the answer appears to be YES any of these models the IRT can pursue. Whether or not 4 is viable remains an open discussion. * Model 4 is “accreditation by association” ™ if ICANN can enforce it. This is only for affiliated P/P services * Model 4 neglects the issue of unaffiliated P/P providers there could be future services that would like to do this and would require more of a model 1 heavyweight accreditation process * Mary Wong, ICANN org, At the time of the PDP did not want to artificially limit the market or force particular channels. A lot of service providers that could be considered under the definition. Answering the questions posed, this group agrees. Whether or not it is within your terms of reference to provide additional guidance projecting ahead, it really will be unfortunate if these discussions will take place again in the IRT without more specific guidance. Lengthening the time in the IRT to debate which models/why unless Council provided some more specific guidance. * Ultimately, Paul will phrase this in a strawperson for TQ B to receive the group’s comments prior to next meeting * Rough consensus currently: ST would NOT preclude any of the 3 original accreditation models as being feasible. Model 4 seems to currently be the default but may need rebranding. Some combination of Model 4 for affiliated or “accreditation by association” and possible future Model 1 for unaffiliated business models that could potentially arise. Some ST member hesitance for both models 1 and 4, with no apparent issues with 2 or 3. * Likely to give IRT some “non-binding guidance” based on the discussions of the ST during the call. Thank you, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>