Hi Anne, Thank you for your helpful comments. They are noted With respect to your questions about slide 17 and communications issues with the GGP, as staff support for the GGP for Applicant Support I can confirm that no issues were raised with the GNSO Council Liaison to the WG. We also do have a Liaison description: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-liais..., which is supplemented with guidance developed via PDP 3.0: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-5-li... I hope this is helpful, but please let us know if you have further questions. Thanks again, Julie From: Anne ICANN via Gnso-scci <gnso-scci@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 at 4:28 PM To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-scci@icann.org" <gnso-scci@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Isabelle Colas-Adeshina <isabelle.colasadeshina@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-scci] Re: Notes and Action Items | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 30 April 2025 Thank you Saewon and Manju, I finally had the opportunity to review the zoom from the last meeting and wanted to provide a few comments on the slides and the comprehensive and productive discussion by the team. (These comments are not in order.) Slide 15 - There was some discussion to the effect that the GGP occurs in response to a Board request and that the scope should be narrow. Just a note (as shown on a later slide) that it is not only the Board which may initiate a GGP request. A formal request to initiate a GGP may be initiated by one Councilor (or an SG or C) and then other procedures follow as described on that later slide. My personal point of view is that the scope of a GGP is limited primarily by the fact that it applies to Implementation and not to Policy Development. The scope of the ASP GGP was necessarily a bit broad. Defining scope as clearly as possible at the initiation of the GGP is of course very important. (See Annex A-2 of the ByLaws). I agree with the observation that the ASP GGP was effective. Also agree that more GGPs will be needed to determine other steps for improvement. My understanding is that if we want to recommend any changes here, we need to understand whether the change would require a ByLaws amendment and/or a change to GNSO Operating Procedures. Hopefully staff can clarify this last bit. Slide 17 - In connection with the discussion on communication issues with ICANN staff on Slide 17, I note that an additional avenue not mentioned on the call is the fact that Council appoints a Liaison to the GGP. In the case of our one GGP example, the Council Liaison was Paul McGrady. So I would have a question as to whether staff raised any communication issues with Paul since, to my mind, that would be the most direct method of raising a staff issue on the GGP to the Council level in order to address any "misalignment." Could staff please specify whether any communication issues were raised with the Council Liaison? If so, how were they addressed? (Agree with Steve Chan that there are several other avenues of communication.) As we consider a need for improved communications, could we please add consideration of the role of the Council Liaison to the GGP? Do our current background materials include the existing written description of the role of Council Liaisons? It might be pertinent to "beef these up" if we think communication is suffering. Slide 10 - This slide concerns the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) and the Implementation Review Team. We were advised to understand that these processes are "owned" by ICANN Org. I think some clarification of the word "owned" is in order as we continue in discussions. (1) The current CPIF actually contains a detailed section on "Roles and Responsibilities". It includes descriptions of staff responsibilities and GNSO Council Responsibilities. Accordingly, I'm not sure the term "owned" applies in this context. Because we won't be discussing staff's proposed changes for a while, I'm not going to start quoting the current CPIF language on "Roles and Responsibilities" here. (2) Regarding the IRT, again I'm not certain the term "owned" is applicable. For certain ICANN Org is responsible to manage the IRT process. The current GNSO Operating Procedures (version 3.7) supply additional information in Paragraph 14 as shown below in blue. (Staff will correct me if I have the wrong version.) "The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations. However, in such case the membership of the IRT will need to be reviewed to ensure that adequate expertise and representation is present to take on the implementation of the additional PDP recommendations). In its Final Report, the PDP Team should provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether an Implementation Review Team should be established and any other recommendations deemed appropriate in relation to such an Implementation Review Team (e.g. composition). ICANN staff should inform the GNSO of its proposed implementation of a new GNSO recommended policy. If the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council’s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request." In this regard, Susan Payne and I, as Co-Liaisons from Council to the Sub Pro IRT, will be bringing an issue before Council this coming May 15 meeting (May 14 for some of us) regarding the IRT's conclusion that ICANN Org is not following Sub Pro Recommendation 36.4 of the Final Report as adopted by the Board. I raise this example in relation to roles and responsibilities vis-a-vis the IRT as defined in the current CPIF and to provide an example as to how communication with the IRT works in the Council Liaison system. Again, many thanks to all who participated in the active discussion in the last zoom meeting. So many well-reasoned comments! I also very much appreciate confirmation of the observation that the SCCI must distinguish between Public Comment suggestions/recommendations in the PSR and those which have been suggested/recommended by staff which have not yet been subject to public comment. This distinction will be important as SCCI work progresses. Thank you and see you Wednesday! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:05 AM Saewon Lee via Gnso-scci <gnso-scci@icann.org<mailto:gnso-scci@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please see the following action items and high-level notes from SCCI Meeting #6 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AoBn...> on 30 April 2025. Kind regards, Saewon Notes, Key Outcomes, and Action Items from Meeting #6 – Wednesday, 30 April at 12:00 UTC [KEY OUTCOMES] 1. Various agreements to capture a clear message (educational material) within the SCCI report that presents a well-defined comparison metrics among processes (PDP, EPDP, GGP, etc.): 1) Why EPDP should be chosen over PDP; 2) No problem to solve at this time for the comprehensive target issue of GGP, but GGP needs to be explained clearly and why the scope has to be limited; 3) GGP timeline expectations and role expectations. 2. To Continue with GGP Analysis 3 in the next meeting for further discussion [ACTION ITEMS] 1. No Meeting next week (7 May) 2. GNSO Support Staff to capture the key outcomes from this meeting to reflect into the recommendations report to the Council: Noted that a clearer definition of roles will be analyzed deeply when reviewing PDP 3.0 later in the year but this can also be captured for P&I report. 3. SCCI Members to continue reviewing the P&I PSR documents with the focus on GGP and GIP and the relevant discussion topics. The documents include Policy Status Report on the Policy & Implementation Recommendations [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> and the Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> 4. SCCI Team to coordinate with CIP-CCG rep. on informing each SG/C of the CIP-CCG decision to pause/delay the CIP Framework development work till further notice. [NOTES] * Retrieve slides from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AoBnC [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AoBn...> * See background documents for P&I PSR discussions here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yDZbBg [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yDZb...> 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #4 · Outlined key agreements from Meeting #4 in the slides (Slide 4) [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> · Announced the status of CIP Framework development: CIP-CCG has determined that changes need to be made to the Framework to provide greater clarity and offer guidance for implementation, which is anticipated for mid-June 2025. GNSO is advised to hold off on developing the Framework till further guidance. · Question on timeline impact from the CIP Framework pause announcement. Noted that the timeline is not impacted in the long-term, as the work will not be delayed overall. SCCI work on P&I PSR has been moving quite fast and CIP Part 2 work will not be affected. · No Meetings on 7 May (CP Summit) and 4 June (ICANN83 travels). Also, when P&I PSR deliberations are done, there will be a pause in meetings while Support Staff draft the report, including during ICANN83. 1. Continue Policy & Implementation Policy Status Report Review · Refer to these documents: Policy Status Report on the Policy & Implementation Recommendations [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> · Noted that the processes for CPIF and IRT Guidelines are owned by GDS of ICANN org and will be updated by GDS to be later coordinated with and reviewed by SCCI. * PSR Analysis on EPDP: i. Agreement Thus Far · Outlined key agreement on EPDP from Meeting #4 in the slides (slide 11) [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> · Question whether some sort of metrics (diagram/comparison table) can be presented in the SCCI report (if it does not currently exist) – comparing PDP, EPDP, and other processes – which relates to selecting EPDP over PDP. Basically, a clear statement of that choice would really help the community. Noted that this suggestion will be considered when the report is being drafted so that the discussion points can be well-captured in the message. · Outcome: Agreement to capture a clear message within the SCCI report that presents a well-defined comparison metrics among processes. * PSR Analysis on GGP: · Outlined key analyses (Analysis 1, 2, and 3) on GGP in the slides (slides 13-19) [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> · For Analysis 1 on setting of the comprehensive target, referred to PSR p.15 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> (Task 4) · Comment on GGP that with only 1 case to refer to, it is difficult to provide a concrete way forward, but due to its nature and how it works (incidental, response to Board, and narrow scope), the comprehensive nature/target (covering a broad array of topics) does not seem necessary. The “comprehensive” aspect should be referred to its impact rather than the scope of work. Additional comment that there needs clarity on what needs to be solved to figure out if GGP needs to be expanded (current example is not sufficient to determine whether the comprehensive target is a problem and GGP was effective). Comment that there is not enough example or sufficient set of data to determine the effectiveness of GGP or realize the problem to be solved. Ensuring better communication among the WG, Council, and org may have helped align expectations on the GGP’s role and goals. Noted that with only 1 case to examine, which was effective, there is actually no problem to solve at this time but that expectations should be aligned on the processes (GGP, GIP, etc.). · Outcome: Agreement that there is no problem to solve at this time for the comprehensive target issue for GGP, but a clear message should be drafted (educational material) to explain what GGP is and why the scope has to be limited. · For Analysis 2 on prolonged timeline, a comment was raised on the misalignment issue again where it could be solved through enhanced communication, describing the processes better. Noted that analyses from org (Staff) and community (public comments) should be clearly distinguished. The misaligned communication may result from the lack of role definition (or understanding the role of every party involved); For example, Staff’s role should be on defining the processes for facilitating discussions in the development of policy (rather than asserting a heavy hand) where the outcome may be framed in some manner. AI: Noted that a clearer definition of roles will be analyzed deeply when reviewing PDP 3.0 later in the year – also can be captured in the P&I recs report. · Question on what mechanism is currently in place for the communication between GNSO Council and ICANN org to enhance communication (in response to discussion question 2). Noted that there are various ways that the aforementioned parties could communicate; Written communication shared via Implementation Staff (Council-GDS) and/or an open line communication if Council needs more input from Staff (and vice-versa through writing or request a slot for discussion within the Council Meeting). · Outcome: Agreement on providing a clear message on timeline expectations and role expectations. · For Analysis 3 on encouraging more direct community involvement in the GGP, noted that sufficient involvement/representation existed for the previous GGP. Regarding the update to the initiation request, a suggestion was raised that perhaps more clarity on the “Initiation Request” (scope) may be needed. · Outcome: To Continue with GGP Analysis 3 in the next meeting for further discussion. 1. Next Steps · AI: NO meeting next week and SCCI to reconvene on 14 May · AI: SCCI Team to coordinate with CIP-CCG rep. on informing each SG/C of the CIP-CCG decision to pause/delay the CIP Framework development work till further notice. 1. AOB _______________________________________________ Gnso-scci mailing list -- gnso-scci@icann.org<mailto:gnso-scci@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-scci-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-scci-leave@icann.org>