Dear All,

Please see the following action items and high-level notes from SCCI Meeting #4 in 2026 on Wednesday, 15 April at 12:00 UTC.

Kind regards,

Saewon

Notes and Action Items from SCCI Meeting #4 in 2026 on Wednesday, 15 April at 12:00 UTC.

[KEY OUTCOMES]

1. Theme 1: Regarding the vague period/frequency topic, SCCI agreed to add a qualitative Indicator while adding other qualitative characters to certain Indicators – Agreement to line up the Indicators in the order of frequency, mechanism, and then effectiveness
2. Theme 3: SCCI agreed with “one or more” for the low baseline Indicators.

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. LT/Staff to incorporate the agreements to the Indicator doc. and circulate it with the SCCI Members
2. SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, provide input if any, especially focusing on GNSO/GNSO Council distinction (Principle 3).

[NOTES]

• Slides available at the SCCI’s dedicated wiki agenda page here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HgC1Nw

1. Welcome and SOIs

· N/A

2. Recap of Meeting #1: Key Outcomes and Action Items

· SCCI Members agreed to the proposed approach and methodology to move forward with the Indicators – Thanks to all the members for the input to the draft Indicators.

3. Review of SCCI Comments for Indicators

• SCCI comments for the CIP Assessment Framework can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ER4xnR6MNJ50LpkHhnng1tffVMslKsC0nX8MOOJYMUA/edit?usp=sharing

• Manju reminded the SCCI Members of the CIP Phase 1 Work Plan via slide 7; currently developing Indicators.
• Prior to delving into individual comments via the doc., LT/Staff believed a level setting on CIP Assessment Framework Development assignment may be helpful, which is listed via slide 8: 1) At present, SCCI to focus only on reviewing Indicators; 2) the current agreed upon Indicators include a mixture of process/procedure/governance-based lists and quantifiable; 3) the expectation is not for Indicators to score 10/10 but to have areas to improve – we need to focus on questions rather than the answers; 4) data may not be easy to collect and need to consider the feasibility and usability; 5) the collection of data will eventually help GNSO determine areas of the greatest need for improvement.
• Concern raised that the current Indicators may not be practical or useful, rather academic, and that most answers will come from the survey where we don’t know how this will be captured/formulated. Acknowledged the concerns and noted that the SCCI will be developing the survey together under the org guidance once the Assessment Framework is stabilized.
• SCCI comments on Indicators by theme in slide 9:
  • Theme 1: Periodic Frequency and preciseness of the frequency request (e.g., regularly). Noted that we are asking the questions, not seeking answers which may seem like the questions or timing/frequency is vague.
    • Specifity may not be relevant as the Indicator will act as questions for SCCI’s data gathering purposes and the assessment will only occur after.
    • Suggestion: The GNSO Council engages effectively with SOs, ACs, SGs, and Cs.
    • Need for a qualitative Indicator (i.e., is it sufficient? Is it effective?) beyond the quantitative (i.e., frequency), you know, and you ask a question
    • Options: 1. Revise “regularly” to “effectively”; 2. Add a new Indicator with “effectively”
    • SCCI agreed not to combine many characteristics to one Indicator (effectively and regularly) since it will become blurry and more difficult to measure.
    • Indicator 2 can be revised to: “…one or mechanism to effectively seek input…”
    • Indicator 3 can add “…sufficiently engages…”  to review again next week.
  • Theme 3: Bar is too low with “at least one” and should be revised to “one or more”
    • With the current language (at least one), it does not actually identify what/any mechanisms asked, or how effective they are; Survey questions should talk about naming those mechanisms. Noted that the current language and intent was not to respond with only “yes/no” but to list out the mechanisms.
    • SCCI agreed to proceed with “one or more”
    • Not all Indicators need to be a part of the survey – i.e., frequency which can be calculated by org – and that makes the qualitative aspects more important for the survey.
  • Theme 2 – Statement Indicators to be revised into more measurable methods – was a path agreed upon in previous meetings.
  • Theme 4: GNSO Council and GNSO as a whole distinction (mainly in Principle 3).
    • Question raised if the Principle can include – or be separated – to ask questions on both GNSO and the GNSO Council. Noted that this needs more careful review and that each item will need to be examined.

*Outcome: 1) Theme 1: Regarding the vague period/frequency topic, SCCI agreed to add a qualitative Indicator while adding other qualitative characters to certain Indicators – Agreement to line up the Indicators in the order of frequency, mechanism, and then effectiveness; 2) Theme 3: SCCI agreed with “one or more” for the low baseline Indicators.

*Action Item: 1) LT/Staff to incorporate the agreement to the Indicator doc. and circulate it with the SCCI Members; 2) SCCI to review the doc. again, focusing on Principle 3.

4. Next Steps

· Meeting on 22 April

· SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, provide input if any, especially focusing on GNSO/GNSO Council distinction.

*Action Item: SCCI Members to review the CIP Assessment Framework doc. again, provide input if any, especially focusing on GNSO/GNSO Council distinction.

5. AOB

· N/A

From: Steve Chan via Gnso-scci <gnso-scci@icann.org>
Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 2:10 PM
To: "gnso-scci@icann.org" <gnso-scci@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-scci] Proposed Agenda | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 15 April 2026

Dear SCCI Members,

Please see the proposed agenda for meeting #2 for 2026, on Wednesday, 15 April at 12:00 UTC.

1. Welcome and SOIs
2. Recap of Meeting #1: Key Outcomes and Action Items
3. Review of SCCI Comments for Indicator: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ER4xnR6MNJ50LpkHhnng1tffVMslKsC0nX8MOOJYMUA/edit?tab=t.0 [docs.google.com]
4. Next Steps
5. AOB

Best,

Steve

Steven Chan


VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410