2025-04-30 SCCI - Meeting #06

Notes/ Action Items

[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] and the Presentation to the GNSO Council: PSR on P&I [gnso.icann.org]
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
• 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 #4

• Outlined key agreements from Meeting #4 in the slides (Slide 4)
• 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]

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

• 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.

1. PSR Analysis on EPDP:

1. 3.Agreement Thus Far

• Outlined key agreement on EPDP from Meeting #4 in the slides (slide 11)
• 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.

1. PSR Analysis on GGP:

• Outlined key analyses (Analysis 1, 2, and 3) on GGP in the slides (slides 13-19)
• For Analysis 1 on setting of the comprehensive target, referred to PSR p.15 (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.

4.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.

5.AOB