September 2024 - Ccnso-pgawg

NOTES / PGA WG / 24 Sept 2024 (4 UTC)
by Joke Braeken Sept. 24, 2024

Sept. 24, 2024

NOTES / PGA WG / 24 Sept 2024 (4 UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Carter 1. Administrative matters 1. SOI updates Jordan: as part of transparency and accountability we have to the community, please update your SOI 1. Workplan Jordan: We thought about best method to explore the gaps, and test people#s views to test the gaps identified by IANA. We used it previously during ICANN meetings and will use it again. To bring the different viewpoints together. We will address 3 issues today. Then evaluate, consider where we are going with the ones we wish to discuss. Please see the table in the slides, and have a look at the plan. I will review after the meeting. Have we done all that needs to be done? Bart: next meeting we will go through the overview of the applicable policies. Jordan cannot attend next meeting. Good to take stock, and use breakout room Jordan: today we will use mentimeter. Make sure everyone#s voice is being heard. If you have comments about the workplace, please send an email to the list 1. Discussion potential gaps identified by IANA 1. Method San Juan & Kigali outcomes (see PDF) Bart: we did hypotheticals in San Juan. 2 of them. They map very well with 2 of the topics from Kim-s doc. We did polling via mentimeter. We repeated this in Kigali, based on the doc by Kim. Same series of questions, but refined. In Kigali we addressed a topic. First intro by Kim, and then we opened the floor for questions and comments. We will use the method from Kigali for the 3 topics we see. Basic method. In 4 weeks we will do the last 2 topics. One of the topics ia about a general policy. Probably something for a broader discussion. The order of the topics is set by IANA * Topics for discussion: identified gaps from IANA perspective Jordan: please log in to mentimeter Abdalmonem: I will join shortly. Currently driving * Local presence Kim: text in RFC1591 mentions that at least the admin-c needs to reside in the country involved. Situation evolved. IANA, last 25 years, added interpretation to basic statements of policy. Turned them into workable versions of policy. Our interpretation is not that it is a person. Could be a company too, but with meaningful nexus to the country or territory Mechanism for accountability. Our interpretation: where is the ccdld manager located? The legal entity? The body? Not the contact person perse. As part of our assessment, we look at the operational characteristics of a ccTLD, where are the primary operations conducted. Could be a legal entity, but no operations in the country. Does not mean that all operations need to be in the country. For name servers, it is best practice to have them outside too, for resilience reasons. >>> Mentimeter is being used to collect questions and comments e.g: I can see a legal reason, do not understand why tech ops should be local? Kim: disaster recovery. Another area we see from time to time. Tech ops are not local in a meaningful way. The get might have a contract with a entity outside of the country. No local presence by the contractor. The gvt might want to move the operations to another operator. But outside of the jurisdiction. e.g. How can minimum operations locally be defined? Kim: no highly prescriptive. We use common practices and own judgment. Is it aligned with common operations? e.g. compliance Kim: see different question. Compliance generally. We provided council in the application phase. We do give the horror stories. Other countries regretted the loss of local control. IANA does not have tools in its toolbox to fix it. Jordan: first discuss whether it is a gap. Whether we should do sth about it is the next step >>> Mentimeter used to assess importance Peter: what type of local presence. Operationally? Bart: the ccdld manager, the legal entity, that is the bare minimum Kim: agree. 2 facets being looked at differently. Local accountability measure. Local law as appropriate. Are options available? No longer in jurisdiction? If the vendor, to the real world operations of the ccTLD, moves outside the country, there are limited options for the gvt to do sth about it. Seriously consider escrow. Make sure that you have regular copies of your essential business data. >>> is this a gap? Peter: wording from RFC1591? Claudia: at least the admin-c must reside in the country involved Peter: I disagree. RFC is clear. Whether it is clear enough? Lacks any specifications on the local operations. There might be gap. But there is policy. Bart: you do not tinker with RFC1591? Peter: different question. From the follow-up intro that Kim gave, I agree there is something to look at. The way the question is formulated, I would disagree as well. What we have is not sufficient. * Minimum level of involvement Kim: commonalities with previous issue. Operational complexity evolved since the early days. Managers to be responsible in a material was. That was the case in the 80ies and 90ies. That has evolved. Use of registry operators. Things continue to evolve. There are many different operating models. Where we see problems, is when the ccTLD manager does not have any responsibility. Passed on to a 3rd party. Different issues. The party we recognize as ccdld manager, is unresponsive to us regarding basic operational questions. Raises fundamental questions about the general eligibility policies. When we assess a ccdld manager transfer, if the party we asses is not going to run the ccTLD, what are we assessing? What if the change the vendor down the road? In some situations there was an explicit choice to delegate to an entity that passes all obligations to a party under contract, and then select another parts again. The way the policies are written, does not foresee that this scenario is proper. What are responsibilities of a ccdld manager? Different issues. >>> questions or comments? e.g. percentage of ccTLDs that have an issue? Kim: roughly 10%. Depends also on how you define issue. Peter: issue with who has the final responsibility Kim: the ccdld manager. clear. Sometimes they are only a conduit. Disparity between the obligations a ccdld manager as specified in RFC1591. We have no formal knowledge of who the this party is. no record in IANA Diego: See chat. could be a lack in policy. Clear obligation for ccdld managers. Cannot use menti >>> assessing importance Peter: multiple choice is weird. We need to order from very important to least important. Radio Button would have been better Bart: we used this in San Juan and Kigali as well. Peter: people can choose both very important and not important at all. Just offer people one single choice, not multiple choice >>> why did you rate the way you did? See menti. >>> does it illustrate a gap that needs to be filled? Jordan: different ways of thinking about it * Active compliance monitoring Jordan: Defer to the next meeting Bart: overall, does this work for you? Comments on the methodology? Irina: menti as a tool is nice. It is not easily accessible from all over the world. It is not click and go. Could be an issue for others. Bart: would it be helpful to send the code before the meeting? Irina: perhaps. At least we can try to prepare. Bart: note about the questions. Jordan: good experience. But some lessons learned. Experiment worth doing. 1. Next meeting 8 October / Maria will chair the meeting. Jordan on leave 22 October Action item #1 Jordan: take a look at the overview of polices, prior to the next meeting 1. AOB None 1. Closure Thank you all.

1 0

Outcome mentimeter questions, polling meeting
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 24, 2024

Sept. 24, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the outcome of meeting 3 Notes and zoom comments will follow shortly. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Sept. 24, 2024

Sept. 24, 2024

***STARTING IN 45 MINS*** Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/95343564290?pwd=s4XExjPzsgl74t9I5pbfc7LzT5oWNS.1 Meeting ID: 953 4356 4290 Passcode: PGAWG#2024 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/gwBoFg

1 0

REMINDER | Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Sept. 23, 2024

Sept. 23, 2024

Dear all, As a reminder, the next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/95343564290?pwd=s4XExjPzsgl74t9I5pbfc7LzT5oWNS.1 Meeting ID: 953 4356 4290 Passcode: PGAWG#2024 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/gwBoFg Best regards, Claudia Ruiz

1 0

Agenda and background material
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 23, 2024

Sept. 23, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the agenda for the upcoming PGA meeting, and (links to the) background material. Please note we will be using Mentimeter polling for this meeting, the access code or QR code will be shared at the start of the call, as well as instruction on how to join. Kind regards, Bart Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Administrative matters * SoI updates * Workplan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… 3. Discission of potential Gaps identified by IANA * Method, San Juan & Kigali outcomes ( see included PDF). * Topics to be discussed (see the items in paper: Identified GAPs from IANA perspective [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/15D2j805FMomv…>. The order of topics in the paper follows the order of priority of topics from the IANA perspective. The next 3 topics to be discussed are: i. Local Presence ii. Minimum level of Involvement iii. Active Compliance Monitoring 1. Next meeting * 8 October 2024 * 22 October 2024 2. AOB 3. Closure

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Sept. 21, 2024

Sept. 21, 2024

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/95343564290?pwd=s4XExjPzsgl74t9I5pbfc7LzT5oWNS.1 Meeting ID: 953 4356 4290 Passcode: PGAWG#2024 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/gwBoFg Best regards, Claudia Ruiz

2 1

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Sept. 13, 2024

Sept. 13, 2024

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 24 September 2024 at 04:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/95343564290?pwd=s4XExjPzsgl74t9I5pbfc7LzT5oWNS.1 Meeting ID: 953 4356 4290 Passcode: PGAWG#2024 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/gwBoFg

4 4

Homework, ahead of the 24 September PGA WG meeting
by Joke Braeken Sept. 10, 2024

Sept. 10, 2024

Dear All, Action item #2: Working group members to read the following documents by the next meeting, and to add any comments they may have: * Overview of Policies and Guidance relevant to ccTLDs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit?u…> * Identified GAPs from IANA perspective<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15D2j805FMomv0Hl7pn39D3S3_DbBAJYpeq8d1kY…> Best regards, Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>

1 0

NOTES | PGA WG | Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 20:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken Sept. 10, 2024

Sept. 10, 2024

NOTES | PGA WG | Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 20:00 UTC. 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Carter, PGA WG Chair Apologies by Bart, Pengzu, Abdalmonem and Chris 2. Administrative matters a) SOI updates Action item #1: Staff to check whether SOIs are missing for WG members. b) Nomination Chair and Vice Chair: confirmation and next steps Jordan nominated as Chair, Maria as Vice Chair Next step: formal appointment by Council (mid-September Council meeting) 3. Decision meeting rotation from next meeting onwards Suggestion: 4 UTC, noon UTC, 20 UTC Agenda item 3. Timezone distribution PGA members https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=9&day=10&year… 4, UTC, noon UTC, 20 UTC: Rotation until ICANN 81. Evaluate at ICANN 81, to see how it works. 4. Previous meeting: questions or comments regarding the intro to PGA WG work? none 5. Overview of Policies and Guidance relevant to ccTLDs Agenda item 4: overview policies and guidance relevant to ccTLDs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit?u… Jordan: Bart was the original author of the document. Explains what each page is, and welcomes comments. >>> intro ccNSO mandate to develop best practices. Some of the policy sources pre-date ICANN. E.g. RFC1591. Key foundational document. >>> chapter 1 Idea behind the doc: have a comprehensive list of all policies, guidelines etc that apply to relation between the ccTLD and IANA. main sources of the mandate. >>> chapter 2 Iso 3166-1. Exceptionally reserved names, IDN ccTLDs ccPDP4 >>> chapter 3 >>> section 4. Dispute resolution Pablo: will we create a new RFC that replaces FOI and 1591? Jordan: we do not need to do that. The RFC series is no longer the place where the policies are made. Kim: what Jordan said is correct. MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding policy development. There is no RFC to be published. Unless: RFC1591 is not a thing, go see icann policy docs. Was published in 1994 by icann staff. Current operational practices, but it is not policy. Part of the problem: a new person looking at the doc does not understand that it has never been intended as a policy. Jordan: we had to had have sth to point to Nick: nostalgia. It is not a policy doc. It is a quaint use of the language. Long time ago. Jordan: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591 Nick: almost the 10 commandments. Nuances are historic. Hard to rewrite, without changing the interpretation of the policy as it was intended. Some intentions are obscure. You need to look at the FOI. once you pull the string, you do not know where it ends up/ Irina: Sections 2 & 3 of this document need to be updated as PDP4 was approved by ccNSO Council and members and now is for Board consideration Nick: interesting exercise. Sad to see it retiring. It is a historical artifact. Words from John Postel. It is going to take extreme care. Jordan: part of the work by this PGA WG, identify gap. One way to fill the gap is to create policy. In a later call, we will look into the set of methods to fill a gap. If we create something new, it will create benefits (e.g. for iana), but it will also create challenges. By nature, it opens up what is in the policy. Some gvt or community participants might be uncomfortable. This group will make a recommendation to the ccNSO community what the gaps are and what the recommended method is to fill them. Pablo: i believe the work that was done by the small team of Councillors that developed this doc. It created a path for us to understand how these policies evolved, and the importance of why they need to be updated. Need to be careful. Recognise that the doc no longer responds to the realities of what we do, and how the TLDs evolved. Strong doc. Jordan: don’t come to a decision too quickly. We will come to the way forward later on >>> Section 5. guidance/advice. E.g. emojis, wildcards Jordan: not sure if there is a policy about what can and cannot be in the root zone Current state of knowledge from April. Some things have changed in the meanwhile. E.g. ccPDP4 policy as noted by Irina. Peter: financial contributions to ICANN guideline. Not sure it fits here? The rest of the list deals with the structure of the naming system, the role of the ccTLD and related parts. Jordan: this group does not update the guidelines. We have GRC. but we factored in all factors in the relation between ccTLDs and iana. Whether or not you make a financial contribution, does not influence the treatment by iana Peter: rabbit hole. Avoid it form the start. Jordan: for some it was the first time you walked through this doc. To do: make introductory paragraph. Action item #2: Working group members to read the following documents by the next meeting, and to add any comments they may have: * Overview of Policies and Guidance relevant to ccTLDs * Identified GAPs from IANA perspective<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15D2j805FMomv0Hl7pn39D3S3_DbBAJYpeq8d1kY…> Jordan: Treat it as a resource for us to use. It is a working doc for us. Between now and November, we need to be careful that we are comfortable with the content and that it is up to date, before we share it with the community. 6. PGA Workplan Agenda item 5: proposed PGA workplan https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… Jordan is hoping for Kim to be available. IANA gaps list, and prioritisation. What are the most important gaps? Were they listed in priority order? Kim: roughly ordered, but yes. I will need to clarify it is a not a conflict for me, will be in Colombia Jordan: if needed, we will shift the order. Jordan speaks to the proposed workplan. 90 min block at ICANN 81 Here is the draft ccnso block schedule for ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=351404066 Saturday morning, block 2: working group meets Tuesday afternoon, block 4: update to community as part of the ccNSO members meeting Nick: likes the workplan. ccPDP4 Caucus of the ICANN Board had 40plus questions regarding implementation. When we come up with restatements of existing policies, we need to learn from that experience. Disconnect. Huge amount of extra work. Great drain on the limited amount of volunteer time. Could we move in parallel with a quasi board caucus? Before the ccnso vote? Do the people we deliver the policy to, is it fit for purpose? Jordan: agree with the problem with the problem you identified. Council to examine how to avoid it from happening again. Look at how the GNSO writes its policies. ICANN system is used to that. Engaging with legal, with iana. Whatever we do, we want a collaborative relationship with icann. Use all resources. To avoid the situation we are in now Irina: regarding the suggested workplan. The first task for the WG as per its charter is to complete the overview of the policies and guidance at ICANN. What are we goign to present? Doc from item 5? Or a consolidation doc as discussed by small team Jordan: the doc we ran through today would be the doc. If we decide to do a consolidation, and identify there is a gap … just create a resource where people can find the info. Not write new content. There is no time. Peter: phase 1 of the work in this group. Once council adopts the output of the work of this group. At icann 81, or the meeting after that, the group comes to a close? Jordan: yes, in narrow sense. Phase 2: starting work on the gaps. 7. AOB none 8. Closure and next meeting 24 September 2024, 4 UTC Background materials * Doc library: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Material * All materials will be posted on the PGA WG workspace. See https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/PGA+WG+-+10+September+2024+a… Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 10 September 2024 at 20:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Sept. 10, 2024

Sept. 10, 2024

***Starting in 30 Mins*** Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 10 September 2024 at 20:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/95343564290?pwd=s4XExjPzsgl74t9I5pbfc7LzT5oWNS.1 Meeting ID: 953 4356 4290 Passcode: PGAWG#2024 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/VQEiFg

1 0