Hello All, Please find the attached notes and action items from the PPSAI Small Team Meeting #5. Please review the staff adjustments to the language in TQC and TQK and edit as you see fit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SOk8cJzH8LZBI-oqfHbXJ9AdLD8ORHylcm0cI00-... Action Items: ALL: Fill out incoming doodle poll for next week’s final Small Team Meeting ALL: Review Staff adjustments to language on TQC and TQK ALL: Review all finalized strawpeople for next week’s FINAL meeting Staff: Make suggested revisions to TQ C and TQK [COMPLETED] Notes: * Paul Spoke to Farzi about disclosure framework discussed for legal and there would be a HRIA encourage IRT to have disclosure framework looked at by legal Staff to stick sentence in on the end (AI Staff to add text toTQ C) * Question from Leon disclosure framework has an extensive legal review. That legal review has been done, which areas or questions they would like to raise for the legal review. * Legal review for disclosure framework is built to make sure nothing went astray. When IRT is done and ready to push go, have the lawyers look at it again. How HRIA is done, the IRT would like NCSG help, they can ask for that help, but not Council issue per se. * HRIA assessment is a task for the IRT once it is finalized. Like a legal review will take at the end when the disclosure framework is established. * TQK: Where we sit in the racetrack of policy and implementation. We are well into implementation work. There are other things going on in the community, but those things are not policy, some are implementation. All interesting and may get things across finish line before us. IRT can't stop its work while we wait for Board adopted policies. Community work will never stop. IRT standing still is not practical, it would be like a pile up on the freeway. * Alignment is worthwhile but not necessary. Urgent requests (adopted but not implemented). * TQK: Agreement with the text, but the wording is off in that it sounded like anything that came out of this would take precedent over polices that had been agreed to since. With Reg Data policy supersedes comes out of PPSAI. It would not overtake policy that has intervened. This can set the current precedent for the moment, but if there has been intervening policy, like Reg Data, that must be taken into consideration here. But we don't have to wait for policy work currently being done by WG to make sense. * (AI for John: tighten up language on TQK) * TQA Issue 2: Concern about assumption that this only applies to affiliated P/P providers. We decided this could only apply to affiliated service providers. That was not the decision of the PDP, as they did make a distinction, this appears to be making policy. * Distinction, if a registrar is not to knowingly do business with an unaccredited P/P service. Did the final report say that this should apply to unaffiliated? Final report raises the issue and suggests that the "may require implementation adjustment" a model may accredit providers despite those not affiliated with a registrar. * Former IRT looked for unaffiliated providers, no provider has officially become known. Final report is vague, and this could be considered "implementation adjustment" as it has not been implemented. * "In the event and unaffiliated P/P service seeks accreditation, then the IRT may need to be reconvened to accommodate that." * Result: softened language in Issue 2. 3.7.7 Clarification it reads that indicates that it only applies to non-accredited entitles and applies to everyone, why we need this if it applies to everyone. Sentence flipped in the end of the last paragraph. * TQ B: text updated to soften language about the non-existence of unaffiliated P/P providers * TQ C: implementation guidance, gist implementation guidance is not policy, but explain why referring to it does not refer to this issue as implementation guidance. It was an intentional thing to not call out this as implementation guidance. If there is concern with this. * What is the difference between implementation guidance, implementation note, and policy. Report does not call this area in implementation guidance. This does not meet that level of weight. * It was noted that some things in the report were called implementation guidance, and specifically this issue was not. * Caitlin: addressed the clear question of guidance and note. Where they appear. Guidance is in the final report and that is language that WG agreed to have in IRT. A note exists in some consensus policy to help CP for what policy language might mean. Example of expired names, notice approx. 1 month prior to expiration 26-35 days. Simply: Guidance is helping IRT and ICANN org and a note is when policy is in effect what it means for contracted parties. * TQK action item staff to add sentences. * There will be a final call next week to agree to finalized text after staff has made the requested adjustments * It was raised that registrars will ask questions about the need to do and what needs to be done. A lot that has already been implemented. Ways to figure out ways to implement those areas. Some things that don't need to be implemented at this point. * This would likely be a letter to the IRT from the registrars to the IRT rather than something for Council to deliberate * Small Team is on track to deliver for October Council meeting 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>