2025-04-09 SCCI - Meeting #03

Notes/ Action Items

[KEY OUTCOMES]

1. No need to change the names of PDP/EPDP but to add a diagram to the EPDP Process Manual [gnso.icann.org] to show the difference between a PDP and an EPDP while also setting expectations by including a draft timeline in the WG charter.
2. Develop talking points for broader community that there is not much difference between a PDP and an EPDP.
3. No need to take further action on “additional guidelines necessary to clarify when policy recommendations are intended to impact pre-existing policies and contract requirements” as this element has already been updated in the WG charter template. This has also been captured within the newly initiated PDP (e.g, LD PDP WG Charter [gnso.icann.org]).
4. Eliminate the requirement for Early Input Process when appropriate (optional) and to refine the recommendation text together as a Team at a later date prior to submitting the report to Council.
5. Ensure that WGs and WG leadership are aware of different working practices available to improve working practices where the timeline or work might benefit from those practices.
6. Ensure that WGSA includes questions about “lessons learned” in the future.

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. GNSO Support Staff to capture the key outcomes from this meeting to reflect into the recommendations report to the Council.
2. SCCI Members to continue reviewing the P&I PSR documents, including the Policy Status Report on the Policy & Implementation Recommendations [gnso.icann.org] and the Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org])
3. SCCI Members to continue reviewing the Criteria as proposed by the CCOICI[docs.google.com] with respective SG/Cs (by 16 April) and integrate any input as necessary to provisionally finalize the document.
4. Leadership/Staff to present the assignment forms to the GNSO Council for its confirmation during the April Council Meeting while providing a comprehensive overview of SCCI and its upcoming work.

[NOTES]

- See Slides here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/GNSOSCCI/pages/140115970/2025-04-09+SCCI+-+Meeting+03?preview=/140115970/211386437/slides-scci-09apr25pdf.pdf [icann-community.atlassian.net]

1.Welcome & SOIs

• N/A2

2.Recap of Meeting #2

• The input from SCCI Members on Criteria as proposed by the CCOICI[docs.google.com] will be incorporated by 16 April.

3.Overview of Policy & Implementation Policy Status Report

• PSR Analysis on EPDP
  • See relevant documents on P&I PSR:

Policy Status Report on the Policy & Implementation Recommendations [gnso.icann.org]

Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org]

EPDP Process Manual:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-4-epdp-manual-19sep24-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]

• Noted that only EPDP and GGP are captured in the Bylaws (NOT GIP) as EPDP and GGP require Board action while GIP is under Council remit only. It was also noted that GIP has not been used to date. If SCCI decided to change elements within GIP, it would be much easier.
• Question was raised whether there is value in clarifying the role of the community in the choice of PDP vs. EPDP when developing policy (i.e., defining when EPDP is applicable) – maybe it is of value to note the important perspectives (why an issue report is needed) rather than focusing on the lengthiness of the process. Noted that there is value in choosing between the two mechanisms and that this would actually be determined by the GNSO Council. Describing the difference between the two mechanisms would also benefit the community but agreement that there is no need to change the names of these mechanisms.
• EPDP-IDNs was brought up as an example for being relatively fast. Clarification on the Issue Report and Early Input Process stages when selecting the EPDPs over PDPs: For EPDP-IDNs, there was an Early Input Process but NOT the Issue Report stage, which ultimately differentiates EPDP to a PDP; EPDPs only eliminate the “Issue Report” stage.
• Multiple suggestions to provide a diagram within the EPDP Process Manual [gnso.icann.org] and to go with all three (3) possible routes listed in slide 13 [icann-community.atlassian.net].

*Outcomes: 1) No need to change the names PDP/EPDP; 2) Develop talking points for broader community that there is not much difference between a PDP and an EPDP; 3) Add a diagram to the EPDP Process Manual to show the difference between a PDP and an EPDP; and 4) Set expectations by including a draft timeline in the WG charter.

• Question on whether there is a need to implement (fix) the impact on pre-existing policies element, when this has already been captured in the Latin Script Diacritics (LD) PDP WG Charter. Agreed that this problem has been fixed and no further action needed but needs to be presented to the GNSO Council for future consideration.
• Question on charter templates whether these elements are also captured in templates, if any. Noted that this element has been added to the charter template (see “GNSO Work Product Templates: Working Group Charter” section in the GNSO procedures page [gnso.icann.org]).

*Outcomes: No need to take further action on “additional guidelines necessary to clarify when policy recommendations are intended to impact pre-existing policies and contract requirements” as this element has already been updated in the WG charter template. This has also been captured within newly initiated PDPs (e.g, LD PDP WG Charter [gnso.icann.org]).

• Noted that an Early Input Process may be redundant for PDPs, EPDPs, and GGPs, especially if SG/Cs have already sent their representative members to the PDP WGs (cf. representative membership model vs. open model).
• Question on Early Input Process and its impact on the Project Plan (e.g., LD PDP WG announcing the Early Input as voluntary). In theory, the Early Input Process may have been created to affect the Project Plan but in practice (or in the case of LD PDP WG), it does not affect the Project Plan.
• Agreement to make Early Input Process “optional” (eliminating the requirement for early input when appropriate) as currently it is a mandatory process – need to consider the WG model (concrete wording for a later time). To review the recommendation text at a later date together.

*Outcomes: Eliminate the requirement for Early Input Process when appropriate (optional) and to refine the recommendation text together as a Team at a later date.

• Clarified that for “lessons learned”, the WGSA could include questions from “lessons learned”.

*Outcomes: 1) Ensure that WGs and WG leadership are aware of different working practices available to improve working practices where the timeline or work might benefit from those practices; 2) Ensure that WGSA includes questions about “lessons learned” in the future.

• Question raised on SCCI’s current work on P&I PSR and it was noted that the SCCI Team is currently examining the analysis and suggestions from the P&I PSR in order to discuss which path should be recommended to the GNSO Council for the future.

4.Next Steps

• Reminder again for the SCCI members to review the Criteria as proposed by the CCOICI[docs.google.com] with respective SG/Cs (by 16 April) and integrate any input as necessary to provisionally finalize the document.
• SCCI Members to continue reviewing the P&I PSR documents, including thePolicy Status Report on the Policy & Implementation Recommendations [gnso.icann.org] and the Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org])

5.AOB