Thanks Marc. In connection with the Sub Pro ODA, ICANN Org asked the GNSO Council for further instructions relative to the nature of Implementation Guidance. In that case, the Council advised ICANN Org that because there is a presumption that Implementation Guidance will be followed as you have noted, ICANN Org should come back to Council whenever it cannot do so and explain the reasons why and state the alternative approach.

Obviously it would be good to prevent a situation where Org, in the course of the IRT proceedings, would need to come back to the Council. In addition, I'm concerned that the proposed solution for the Team members to examine the Implementation Guidance on a case-by-case basis, will be too time-consuming for the SSAD Supp Rec Team. Given these considerations, I would suggest that the Team issue a general Statement along the following lines:

"Where Implementation Guidance from the EPDP Team is referenced in this Supplemental Recommendations Report, the Supplemental Recommendations Team has not separately reviewed and analyzed the continuing relevance of the previous EPDP Implementation Guidance in light of the new Supplemental Recommendations. Accordingly, the SRT advises the Council and the Council advises the Board that no presumption should be created by such Implementation Guidance and that the IRT will need to determine appropriate steps to implementation in consultation with the GNSO Council where appropriate."

The above (or some similar statement from the Team to be agreed) may avoid the need for detailed discussions surrounding Implementation Guidance previously formulated, especially Guidance which contains the word "MUST". If not, then I understand that the Team will need to discuss Implementation Guidance on a Recommendation by Recommendation basis. I am personally ready to do that, but am wondering about the efficiency of that approach.

It would be good to clarify and/or discuss this issue before our Day 0 meeting. Meanwhile, based on your advice, I guess we all need to carefully review the EPDP Implementation Guidance and be prepared to discuss it in connection with Recommendation 11, Recommendation 17, and the High Effort Recommendations noted for discussion in Seville.

Thank you,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 7:47 AM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-ssad <gnso-ssad@icann.org> wrote:

Dear SSAD SRT Members,

During this week’s meeting, a question was raised by Anne regarding the use of MUST within implementation guidance.

The EPDP working group considered this and included the following in the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report (section 3.4 - page 16),

“Where Implementation Guidance is referenced, the EPDP Team considers this supplemental context and/or clarifying information to help inform the implementation of the policy recommendations but the EPDP Team notes that implementation guidance does not have the same weight and standing as recommendation text to create policy.”

Generally speaking, when a Working Group or EPDP team provides Implementation Guidance, the group is recommending the stated action, and there is a presumption that it will be implemented. Because Implementation Guidance is not the same as a policy recommendation, however, ICANN org, in consultation with the IRT, has the flexibility to deviate from the implementation guidance so long as the alternative course is transparently described, has been carefully considered, and a rationale for any deviation is provided.

With respect to SSAD supplemental recommendations specifically, if the SSAD SRT believes an instance of MUST should be changed to SHOULD or MAY, that is something the group can consider when modifying the SSAD recommendations.

Thank you,

Marc Anderson

_______________________________________________
Gnso-ssad mailing list -- gnso-ssad@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-ssad-leave@icann.org