Hello All, Please see the attached action items, decisions, and notes for the 28 August 2025 meeting #2 of the PPSAI Small Team. Action Items: ALL: Study TQ B for discussion next week: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/ppsai-irt-tq-re... ALL: Comment on strawperson text in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SOk8cJzH8LZBI-oqfHbXJ9AdLD8ORHylcm0cI00-... ALL: Fill out doodle poll for meeting the week of 8 September John: Add TQ C strawperson to TQ A document [COMPLETED] John: Update language in strawperson TQ A Issue 2 [COMPLETED] Terri: Send out invite for 4 September meeting [COMPLETED] Decisions: TQ C: Tentative assessment that option b was the compromise position of the three options as an illustrative framework. Option a likely ruled out by majority. Paul proposed strawperson text as answer – Strawperson: This model is not binding policy to be implemented verbatim, but it also not merely an example. It should be considered what we now call "implementation guidance" and implemented as faithfully as practical to the original text and any variations should be transparent and well documented. The IRT should review the later-adopted Registration Data Policy to ensure fidelity to ICANN's current policy. TQ K: Consensus amongst group: Alignment is worthwhile as long as it does not hold up the implementation work. Since this is currently the only concrete policy and has been adopted by the Board, it can set the precedent and do its best to align with other policies (yet undetermined). If new policies disagree, they can make a recommendation to supersede it. Continue forward with your best approach and do not wait for current policy work. Notes: 1. Introduction to TQ C and discussion of illustrative framework * Robust discussion about how literally to interpret “illustrative” framework. Consensus seemed to be building for option b or c with one voice initially in favor of a (the verbatim interpretation) * More support for option c for illustrative framework (as an example only) and an emphasis by all to implement the policy as quickly and efficiently as possible. There was an awareness at the time, that things were changing rapidly as the PDP was being conducted so there is some flexibility and adaptability built into the recommendations. * Option b (akin to implementation guidance – which did not exist at the time) seemed to be a compromise position * Paul proposed the following strawperson to close out the conversation: “This model is not binding policy to be implemented verbatim, but it also not merely an example. It should be considered what we now call "implementation guidance" and implemented as faithfully as practical to the original text and any variations should be transparent and well documented. The IRT should review the later-adopted Registration Data Policy to ensure fidelity to ICANN's current policy.” i. AI: John: Add TQ C strawperson to TQ A document 1. Introduction to TQ K and discussion of harmonizing with other policies like urgent requests, RDRS and SSAD. * Consensus among group that this is the only current policy that has been Board adopted and should move forward quickly as no other policies have been adopted, and implementation should not be delayed * Logical approach is to not get in the way of other policies and proceed with implementation trying to see how best to harmonize with a recognition that the other policy work currently taking place is not a dependency on this implementation work. * Summary: Consensus amongst group: Alignment is worthwhile as long as it does not hold up the implementation work. Since this is currently the only concrete policy and has been adopted by the Board, it can set the precedent and do its best to align with other policies (yet undetermined). If new policies disagree, they can make a recommendation to supersede it. Continue forward with your best approach and do not wait for current policy work. 2. Look at Strawperson argument from TQ A: * Issue 1 tentatively no one had issues with the text as written * Issue 2 needs updated wording to account for both affiliated and unaffiliated privacy/proxy service providers. Then there can be a recognition that this only applies to registrar affiliated providers. i. AI: John: Update language in strawperson TQ A Issue 2 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>