Dear All,

Please see the following action items and high-level notes from SCCI Meeting #5 on Wednesday, 22 April at 12:00 UTC.

Kind regards,

Saewon

Notes and Action Items from SCCI Meeting #5 on Wednesday, 22 April at 12:00 UTC.

[KEY OUTCOMES]

1. No Meeting on 29 April 2026.
2. P1-C2-I2 (GPI and its effectiveness) will remain as-is.
3. P4-C7-I1 (where appropriate) has been updated to satisfaction.

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. LT/Staff will update changes within the Framework doc. pursuant to the purpose within the Bylaws and share with the SCCI by next meeting for review.
2. SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, focusing on: 1) GNSO/GNSO Council distinction; and 2) Criteria that can be eliminated.

[NOTES]

• Slides available at the SCCI’s dedicated wiki agenda page here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HoC0Nw

1. Welcome and SOIs

• Manju shared updates regarding her SOI which can be viewed here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/B85dBg

2. Recap of Meeting #4: Key Outcomes and Action Items

• Key Outcomes and AIs from Meeting #4 can be viewed in slide 5 and the agreements have all been incorporated as appropriate within the Framework doc. (new version)

3. Review of SCCI Comments for Indicators

• Draft CIP Assessment Framework (new version) can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p_d3rEr25NV7RkSAwh5HsTwXEXC4rDm2Uk__6Tj14kw/edit?usp=sharing

• To provide context and facilitate discussions for the GNSO/GNSO Council distinction for Criteria/Indicators, LT/Staff presented the purpose of GNSO in relation to ICANN Bylaws via slide 8; LT proposes that if there are no objections to adhering to this purpose within the Bylaws, the updated language within the doc. will be shared with the SCCI incorporating corresponding changes by next meeting – No objections from SCCI.
• LT/Staff pointed out that “operative terms” have been highlighted within the Criteria to help guide (re)formulate the Indicators.
• For the comment on GPI and effectiveness (P1-C2-I2), the SCCI agreed to maintain the current Indicator per the above guidance. Thomas also noted that it is not about complying with the GPI but demonstrating that we have considered it.
• For the comment on measuring the implementability related to external factors (P2-C6-I2 and I3), Jen commented that maybe something – e.g., period, external factors – could be added to the Indicators to tighten them up. Chris noted that there may be a link between these Indicators and Board readiness work.
• Re timeline question from Jen, LT suggested perhaps a milestone could be added to the Indicator for precision (e.g., After PDP 3.0, After Board Readiness work…). GNSO Staff can also check in with staff that supports CIP and see if they have any guidance for SCCI.
• Re “where appropriate” on asking if there is a scenario where GNSO would disagree with any recommendations of a particular review (P4-C7-I1), Jen was satisfied with the current updated draft. (e.g., Indicator 1: The most recent GNSO Review was/is being duly considered; Indicator 2: The most recent GNSO Review was/is being implemented.)
• Re too many “variables” or “characterstics” within an Indicator (P4-C8-I1), Steve noted that the operative word within the Criteria may help (i.e., in place) to understand why the 3 characteristics do not overload the Indicator. Chris suggested to change the corresponding Criteria to “The GNSO is able to assess, prioritize…” Steve noted that for CIP that is still a Pilot and may not be available for data collection at the time we are conducting this work may be a factor to consider.

*Outcomes: 1) P1-C2-I2 (GPI and its effectiveness) will remain as-is; 2) P4-C7-I1 (where appropriate) has been updated to satisfaction.

*Action Item: LT/Staff will update changes within the Framework doc. pursuant to the purpose within the Bylaws and share with the SCCI by next meeting for review.

4. Next Steps

• No Meeting on 29 April (CPH Summit)
• SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, focusing on: 1) GNSO/GNSO Council distinction; and 2) Criteria that can be eliminated.
• SCCI Members will only take the finalized doc. to their SG/Cs once it is confirmed by LT that the Framework (doc.) is stable – Not now.

*Outcomes: No Meeting on 29 April.

*Action Item: SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, focusing on: 1) GNSO/GNSO Council distinction; and 2) Criteria that can be eliminated.

5. AOB

• N/A

From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 12:31 AM
To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org>, "gnso-scci@icann.org" <gnso-scci@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-scci] Proposed Agenda | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 22 April 2026

Dear SCCI Members,

In support of agenda item 3, please find our new working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p_d3rEr25NV7RkSAwh5HsTwXEXC4rDm2Uk__6Tj14kw/edit?tab=t.0

You can see suggested redlines, which seek to capture agreements from last week’s meeting; we will talk review those agreements during agenda item 2.

Apologies for the late delivery! You can see that redlines and comments were still being added as of today even.

Best,

Steve

From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-scci <gnso-scci@icann.org>
Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 6:07 AM
To: "gnso-scci@icann.org" <gnso-scci@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-scci] Proposed Agenda | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 22 April 2026

Dear SCCI Members,

Please see the proposed agenda for Meeting #5 for 2026, on Wednesday, 22 April at 12:00 UTC:

1. Welcome and SOIs
2. Recap of Meeting #4: Key Outcomes and Action Items
3. Review of SCCI Comments for Indicators
4. Next Steps
5. AOB

Kind regards,

Saewon

Saewon Lee

Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541

Email: saewon.lee@icann.org

Skype: saewon.lee.icann

Website: www.icann.org