Notes and Action Items | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 21 May 2025
Dear All, Please see the following action items and high-level notes from SCCI Meeting #8<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ> on 21 May 2025. Kind regards, Saewon Notes, Key Outcomes, and Action Items from Meeting #8<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ> – Wednesday, 21 May at 12:00 UTC [KEY OUTCOMES] 1. There will be a pause in SCCI meetings after today while Support Staff draft the implementation report for Policy and Implementation (P&I). 2. Agreement to revise the current comparison diagram among processes (PDP, EPDP, GGP, GIP) presented in slide 9: To highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. 3. Agreement to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. 4. Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. 5. Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. 6. SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I Policy Status Report (PSR) COMPLETED. [ACTION ITEMS] * GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. [NOTES] * Retrieve slides from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ * See background documents for P&I PSR discussions here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yDZbBg 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #7 * Outlined key agreements from Meeting #7 in slide 4. 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...> * PSR Analysis on GGP i. Agreement Thus Far * Presented an updated comparison diagram through slide 9. * Outcome: Agreement to highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. * Reclarification on charter requirement for the GGP: Agreement is to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. ii. Analysis 3 * Outcome: Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. * PSR Analysis on GIP * GIP overview and PSR analysis on GIP presented on slides 16-17. * Question on the current GNSO Council approaches/mechanisms on dealing with certain issues (e.g., Org Reviews) and whether GIP is a necessary tool when it has not been used as long as it has existed. Some suggestions were raised that GIP would be very cumbersome for those informal processes where it would be an unwieldy tool for something that requires a letter being drafted or the formation of small teams. However, the agreement was to keep the “extra tool” that already is in place and well-thought-out; it may just be an awareness issue that could be resolved through the educational material/graphics. For example, GIP may be a useful tool for the future when dealing with the Org Reviews process and the GNSO could provide input through GIP. * Outcome: Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. * As for small teams, noted that the small team membership is limited to GNSO Councilors but that there was a Small team PLUS case for SubPro which expanded to GNSO and beyond, per the Small Team guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/small-team...>. (Note: “Small team membership will generally consist of Council members, but the membership may be supplemented by the broader Community as warranted by the subject area. Care should be taken, however, that if membership extends beyond the GNSO Council that the assignment is not better suited under an existing process or procedure [e.g., a working group that would benefit from the formality of a charter]. *If known at the time of initiation, expectations related to membership should be included in the Assignment Form.”) The members discussed adding more information to the small team guidelines to be more flexible (expertise vs. broader involvement), but the general agreement was to follow the current guidelines. 1. Next Steps * Outcome: SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I PSR COMPLETED. * AI: GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. 1. AOB * HAPPY BIRTHDAY, our fearless leader, Manju!!! 😉
Hi, Thank you for the notes!! and thank you for the birthday wishes 🙈🙈🙈 Just a small amendment for key action item 5; I would suggest deleting the ‘Org’ in front of reviews. While it is true that Org plays a big role in supporting the reviews, the reviews are intended to be done by and for the community. I’d say keeping ‘reviews’ should be sufficient. Thank you!! Best, Manju On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:04 Saewon Lee via Gnso-scci <gnso-scci@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please see the following action items and high-level notes from SCCI Meeting #8 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ> on 21 May 2025.
Kind regards,
Saewon
*Notes**, Key Outcomes, and Action Items from **Meeting #8* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ>* – Wednesday, 21 May at 12:00 UTC*
*[KEY OUTCOMES]*
1. There will be a pause in SCCI meetings after today while Support Staff draft the implementation report for Policy and Implementation (P&I). 2. Agreement to revise the current comparison diagram among processes (PDP, EPDP, GGP, GIP) presented in slide 9: To highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. 3. Agreement to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. 4. Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. 5. Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. 6. SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I Policy Status Report (PSR) COMPLETED.
*[**ACTION ITEMS]*
- GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations.
*[**NOTES**]*
- *Retrieve slides from here: * *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ> - *See background documents for P&I PSR discussions here: * *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yDZbBg* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yDZbBg>
1. *Welcome and SOIs* 2. *Recap of Meeting #**7*
- Outlined key agreements from Meeting #7 in slide 4.
3. *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...>
1. *PSR Analysis on GGP*
* i. **Agreement Thus Far*
- Presented an updated comparison diagram through slide 9. - *Outcome: Agreement to highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well.* - Reclarification on charter requirement for the GGP: *Agreement is to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary.*
* ii. **Analysis 3*
- *Outcome: Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented.*
2. *PSR Analysis on GIP*
- GIP overview and PSR analysis on GIP presented on slides 16-17. - Question on the current GNSO Council approaches/mechanisms on dealing with certain issues (e.g., Org Reviews) and whether GIP is a necessary tool when it has not been used as long as it has existed. Some suggestions were raised that GIP would be very cumbersome for those informal processes where it would be an unwieldy tool for something that requires a letter being drafted or the formation of small teams. However, the agreement was to keep the “extra tool” that already is in place and well-thought-out; it may just be an awareness issue that could be resolved through the educational material/graphics. For example, GIP may be a useful tool for the future when dealing with the Org Reviews process and the GNSO could provide input through GIP. - *Outcome: Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews.* - As for small teams, noted that the small team membership is limited to GNSO Councilors but that there was a Small team PLUS case for SubPro which expanded to GNSO and beyond, per the Small Team guidelines <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/small-team...>. (Note: *“Small team membership will generally consist of Council members, but the membership may be supplemented by the broader Community as warranted by the subject area. Care should be taken, however, that if membership extends beyond the GNSO Council that the assignment is not better suited under an existing process or procedure [e.g., a working group that would benefit from the formality of a charter]. *If known at the time of initiation, expectations related to membership should be included in the Assignment Form.”)* The members discussed adding more information to the small team guidelines to be more flexible (expertise vs. broader involvement), but the general agreement was to follow the current guidelines.
4. *Next Steps*
- *Outcome: SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I PSR COMPLETED.* - *AI: **GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations.*
5. *AOB*
- *HAPPY BIRTHDAY, our fearless leader, Manju!!! **😉*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-scci mailing list -- gnso-scci@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-scci-leave@icann.org
Thank you for the clarification, Manju. Agreed and amended within the notes below. The updates will also be reflected in the wiki. Much appreciated, Saewon Notes, Key Outcomes, and Action Items from Meeting #8 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBm...> – Wednesday, 21 May at 12:00 UTC [KEY OUTCOMES] 1. There will be a pause in SCCI meetings after today while Support Staff draft the implementation report for Policy and Implementation (P&I). 2. Agreement to revise the current comparison diagram among processes (PDP, EPDP, GGP, GIP) presented in slide 9: To highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. 3. Agreement to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. 4. Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. 5. Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. 6. SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I Policy Status Report (PSR) COMPLETED. [ACTION ITEMS] * GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. [NOTES] * Retrieve slides from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBm...> * 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 #7 * Outlined key agreements from Meeting #7 in slide 4. 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...> * PSR Analysis on GGP i. Agreement Thus Far * Presented an updated comparison diagram through slide 9. * Outcome: Agreement to highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. * Reclarification on charter requirement for the GGP: Agreement is to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. ii. Analysis 3 * Outcome: Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. * PSR Analysis on GIP * GIP overview and PSR analysis on GIP presented on slides 16-17. * Question on the current GNSO Council approaches/mechanisms on dealing with certain issues (e.g., Org Reviews) and whether GIP is a necessary tool when it has not been used as long as it has existed. Some suggestions were raised that GIP would be very cumbersome for those informal processes where it would be an unwieldy tool for something that requires a letter being drafted or the formation of small teams. However, the agreement was to keep the “extra tool” that already is in place and well-thought-out; it may just be an awareness issue that could be resolved through the educational material/graphics. For example, GIP may be a useful tool for the future when dealing with the Org Reviews process and the GNSO could provide input through GIP. * Outcome: Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. * As for small teams, noted that the small team membership is limited to GNSO Councilors but that there was a Small team PLUS case for SubPro which expanded to GNSO and beyond, per the Small Team guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>. (Note: “Small team membership will generally consist of Council members, but the membership may be supplemented by the broader Community as warranted by the subject area. Care should be taken, however, that if membership extends beyond the GNSO Council that the assignment is not better suited under an existing process or procedure [e.g., a working group that would benefit from the formality of a charter]. *If known at the time of initiation, expectations related to membership should be included in the Assignment Form.”) The members discussed adding more information to the small team guidelines to be more flexible (expertise vs. broader involvement), but the general agreement was to follow the current guidelines. 1. Next Steps * Outcome: SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I PSR COMPLETED. * AI: GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. 1. AOB · HAPPY BIRTHDAY, our fearless leader, Manju!!! 😉 From: Manju <manju4icann@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 7:51 PM To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-scci@icann.org" <gnso-scci@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-scci] Notes and Action Items | SCCI Meeting | Wednesday, 21 May 2025 Hi, Thank you for the notes!! and thank you for the birthday wishes 🙈🙈🙈 Just a small amendment for key action item 5; I would suggest deleting the ‘Org’ in front of reviews. While it is true that Org plays a big role in supporting the reviews, the reviews are intended to be done by and for the community. I’d say keeping ‘reviews’ should be sufficient. Thank you!! Best, Manju On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:04 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 #8 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBm...> on 21 May 2025. Kind regards, Saewon Notes, Key Outcomes, and Action Items from Meeting #8 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBm...> – Wednesday, 21 May at 12:00 UTC [KEY OUTCOMES] 1. There will be a pause in SCCI meetings after today while Support Staff draft the implementation report for Policy and Implementation (P&I). 2. Agreement to revise the current comparison diagram among processes (PDP, EPDP, GGP, GIP) presented in slide 9: To highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. 3. Agreement to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. 4. Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. 5. Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. 6. SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I Policy Status Report (PSR) COMPLETED. [ACTION ITEMS] * GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. [NOTES] * Retrieve slides from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBmDQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBm...> * 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 #7 * Outlined key agreements from Meeting #7 in slide 4. 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...> * PSR Analysis on GGP i. Agreement Thus Far * Presented an updated comparison diagram through slide 9. * Outcome: Agreement to highlight in the diagram, GGP “implementation” and GIP “Input”, where appropriate; maybe in the left to make a distinction to those processes as well. * Reclarification on charter requirement for the GGP: Agreement is to add the charter requirement to the GNSO Operating Procedures rather than “requiring a charter” to initiate the process itself; amending Operating Procedures only and NOT the Initiation Request, thus NO amendments to ICANN Bylaws necessary. ii. Analysis 3 * Outcome: Agreement that no additional direct community involvement seems necessary given that a GGP is supported by the community and well-represented. * PSR Analysis on GIP * GIP overview and PSR analysis on GIP presented on slides 16-17. * Question on the current GNSO Council approaches/mechanisms on dealing with certain issues (e.g., Org Reviews) and whether GIP is a necessary tool when it has not been used as long as it has existed. Some suggestions were raised that GIP would be very cumbersome for those informal processes where it would be an unwieldy tool for something that requires a letter being drafted or the formation of small teams. However, the agreement was to keep the “extra tool” that already is in place and well-thought-out; it may just be an awareness issue that could be resolved through the educational material/graphics. For example, GIP may be a useful tool for the future when dealing with the Org Reviews process and the GNSO could provide input through GIP. * Outcome: Agreement to maintain GIP and make Councilors aware that it could potentially be a mechanism to use for Org Reviews. * As for small teams, noted that the small team membership is limited to GNSO Councilors but that there was a Small team PLUS case for SubPro which expanded to GNSO and beyond, per the Small Team guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>. (Note: “Small team membership will generally consist of Council members, but the membership may be supplemented by the broader Community as warranted by the subject area. Care should be taken, however, that if membership extends beyond the GNSO Council that the assignment is not better suited under an existing process or procedure [e.g., a working group that would benefit from the formality of a charter]. *If known at the time of initiation, expectations related to membership should be included in the Assignment Form.”) The members discussed adding more information to the small team guidelines to be more flexible (expertise vs. broader involvement), but the general agreement was to follow the current guidelines. 1. Next Steps * Outcome: SCCI’s review of and deliberations on P&I PSR COMPLETED. * AI: GNSO Support Staff to draft the Implementation Report for P&I following SCCI’s deliberations. 1. AOB · HAPPY BIRTHDAY, our fearless leader, Manju!!! 😉 _______________________________________________ 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>
participants (2)
-
Manju -
Saewon Lee