Hello All, Please see the attached action items, decisions, and notes for the 11 September 2025 meeting #4 of the PPSAI Small Team: Action Items: All: Look over revised strawperson document and raise any comments or edits in the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SOk8cJzH8LZBI-oqfHbXJ9AdLD8ORHylcm0cI00-... All: Fill out doodle poll for next week’s meeting Farzi: Look at background on TQ C and share thoughts on list John: Add footnote to link to definitions Outcomes: Tentative strawpeople were reached for all threshold questions, document was cleaned up for readability prior to next discussion Notes: TQ A: Issue 1: Agreement to strawperson as written with minor adjustments, clarified that it was only about definitions and not wider policies Issue 2: Agreement this applies only to affiliated P/P services. Unaffiliated were acknowledged as part of the final recommendations, but no enforcement feasible at this time. Issue 3: Suggestion that further policy work could be done and language was walked back rather than suggesting that the ST recommend further policy work. Issue 4: This was the most robust discussion from the group. Many suggestions about editing and deleting sentences with a compromise position reached. Broad discussion of the role of the IRT. Although the first IRT changed definitions, that is not within their remit, but clarifying or contextual language is fine. * Leon, ICANN org, raised that there are two additional definitions in the RAA that are not included in the final report. He queried if these would then be lost? Should the IRT include the RAA definitions that are in the RAA and not in the report? * Response was that these definitions would likely be lost in implementation unless the Council began additional policy work. Implementation should be done as quickly as possible. TQ B: * Overall, ST agreed that none of the 3 original accreditation models are precluded as infeasible. They offered non-binding guidance leaning toward 2 and 3 * Issues with Model 4 discussed and the heavy lift of model 1 deemed unlikely to be necessary. * Leon, ICANN org, suggested that the branding of “accreditation by corporate affiliation” would be better suited as a description of model 3. TQ C: * Agreement that the model is not binding policy, but was a thought-through example. * Dissent amongst the group about the role of “implementation guidance”. Farzi will take an action item to review TQ C and raise concerns on list. TQ K: * Disagreement on K about whether to proceed or await future policy alignment with issues such as urgent requests. There was a recognition that this may contradict earlier answers to above TQ’s. * Alignment work is fine, but if waiting for issues like urgent requests to be solved, then it could hold up implementation work indefinitely. * If future policies come along, then they should reference this implementation work to see whether they are aligning with it or superseding it * Paul gave a useful analogy of a car in traffic: PPSAI IRT is the car driving. The car needs to keep driving even if there are things coming up in the rearview mirror. It should not stop in traffic and wait for the other policies to pass for implementation work. It is good to be aware of other traffic but not wait for it. All the best, 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>