February 2025 - Ccnso-pgawg

NOTES | PGA | Tuesday, 18 February 2025 (noon UTC)
by Joke Braeken Feb. 18, 2025

Feb. 18, 2025

NOTES | PGA | Tuesday, 18 February 2025 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Carter, PGA WG chair He gives to floor to Maria, Vice Chair 2. Admin matters a. SOI updates Fill out the ccNSO Statement of Interest form: https://forms.gle/79Jw4wSnNhn5W4Z46 Check your SOI here: https://community.icann.org/x/doAFEg<https://community.icann.org/x/doAFEg> Consult the ccNSO SOI Guideline: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-internal-p… Any updates? Jordan: i will stop being a director for the .asia organisation. Therefor change of affiliation b. Update Outline: PGA Working Group: Outline Workplan<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t…> Red: changes 2-reading process. Look at survey results. Look at the additional gaps in the policy consolidation. Final reading of the recommendations at our meeting on the 4th. 3. Prioritisation framework: Agree recommendations to the community - First Reading: See PDF and PGA-WG Working Doc - issues and analysis for WG<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-…> Survey results shared by Jordan. Q3. rank the options 1 = least impact 6 = most impact Maria: why did you vote the way you did? Bart: 13 responded, 12 answered this question. Iana public records: diverging opinions. 5 consider it high impact, 4 low impact. This is the most diverse. Why did you rank it, the way you did? Chris: i think i ranked it as number 1 Think it is very important, in terms of legitimacy of the RZ database. Important: should be disaster recovery. Depends on what we mean by that. Local presence is not that important. The iana public records are important. Atsushi: the impact. It means the importance. I ranked it as 6, because it is important. But the impact means: if the cctld has a right record, there is no impact. Hence ranked 1. The ccTLD means that your cctld or cctld as a whole? That is vague. That is why there is this divergence. Bart: If you look at the way Chris responded, important from a broader perspective, would you reconsider your response? Atsuhi: more importantly, if the question is “impact on your ccTLD”, i would change the answer. I would not list the iana public records. Need to think Peter: difference between importance and impact. I ranked it as least impactful, based on similar consideration. Collective ccTLD vs individual. Would not impact us. But there is a lot of symbolism. Not necessarily a material impact on the collective TLDs. We could only rank them, and not assign weights. Jordan: we did not think about the criteria well enough. Rated iana public records as most impactful on ccTLDs. But not for our ccTLD. Irina: i changed my score twice. First I did not realise, 6 was the most impactful. I did the other way around. Pablo: disaster recovery low, because i use a backend provider. That is being taken care of. Jordan: If others had the same confusion that Irina had, the whole results here might be invalid Jordan: I did have to read the survey and questions a few times to be sure I was scoring it right - I did think the same thing Peter: How does the score calculate? Local presence got 2.67 with no one ranking 1 or 2? Joke: will check the surveymonkey settings Jordan: good to find out. The common sense does match the answer. Intuitively, the iana public records are a lot of work Q4. Bart: least work involved has score 6. But the previous question was phrased the other way around. Let’s check surveymonkey. The averages do not match Table by Jordan Column 2 is the original iana order. Original 9 items. Iana public records includes 3 items. Bart: only 12 out of 19 members responded to the survey. Jordan: The intention was that we would be giving a 1 to the “best” outcome - most positive impact, or least amount of work I fear I may have made a mistake on the order of the Impact list. But maybe I didn;t. There are some issues regarding the quality of the survey. Bart: which order for the study groups? Irina: since we are not so sure about the survey results, i suggest we follow the iana order. Jordan: agree. Disaster recovery: Might be less of a conflict in terms of capacity for the ccnso. Accuracy, in terms of reputation overall, seems to be important. Peter: our own survey …. I am not sure i trust the results. There is confusion about the ranking order. als o counter-intuitive, without having a good explanation. Where do we have clusters of people putting it in the same spot? That was clear in its impact or work involved. Let’s take that into consideration. We could start with the iana order, starting with the public record. But there are other considerations too. Bart: do disaster recovery and iana public records in parallel? Peter: not sure I understand the “disaster recovery” appetite. Maybe local presence to be dealt with at an earlier point. Bart: max. 2 in parallel Irina: On disaster recovery I'd just do a simple survey: how many ccTLDs have their own Disaster Recovery Plan in place and will NOT need any assistance from IANA? Bart: the order is fluid. Depends on who you ask, and when Bart: do you agree we identity 2 out of 6 items first, to focus on after ICANN82. Irina: what about the other order? Bart: do it later, once finished. Maybe others will be involved. You may have another view, once the work is done. Irina: does it mean that this group will stay in active mode until the first study group has finished? Bart: this group has a limited charter. This group will close by Prague, with a report to council, and community consultation. Once the study groups have closed, the council will order to revisit this. Part of the ccnso workplan. Irian: shall we ask the council how the second prioritisation should work? Bart: you cannot do 6 at once. You identified 6 items, and how to address them. Do 2 items first, and then re-evaluate once the work of the first 2 items has closed. Irina: i thought we needed to give more guidance. The order for all 6 items should be advised. What once all 6 studies are done, what happens then? Pdp? Lots of unclarity. Bart: a study group will come up with recommendations. You cannot anticipate the results of these recommendations. Bart: any questions on the proposal? None Bart: who is in favour to identify 2 items first, and to suggest this to council and community. And address the order of the future approach once concluded. Green marks. No red ones Bart: We will revisit in 2 weeks. Bart: “iana public records” and “disaster recovery” as the first 2 items for a study group Any questions or comments? Atsushi: in favour to do iana public records first. However, disaster recovery needs further consideration first. Are the survey results correct? Not sure we have the same understanding. The beginning of the WG is the asking of the iana. But iana did not rank disaster recovery highly. Why do this WG? I am against deciding at this moment to do disaster recovery. Would rather do: local presence, or eligibility before changes Peter: I would like to better understand why (some) people think that DR needs “other” skills. This would not be about DR processes, but the potential role of IANA Bart: Jordan’s remark. Jordan: It was me - if it should be contextualised in the bigger picture of what disaster recovery means - it’s not a strong opinion on my part Might include people working in different parts of our registries. You still need policy skills. Bart: we have an initial ranking. First “iana public records”. Still a debate about DR. Suggestion: on the next call, revisit the ranking, and take into account the outcome of today. Identify the second item at the next meeting. Question for the group: do you want to re-do the survey? Might be more useful to go back to the original idea. What was included in the presentations from iana. What do these various items entail? Conclusion: iana public records as first. Them eligibility or DR as second. To be determined. Maria: if people are confident about the survey, no need to re-do Jordan: open to do the survey again. But this was too confusing. Ask secretariat to look at the scoring again. My suggestion is to not do the scoring offline, but rather in the room in Seattle or online. Bart: the discussion today was far more useful than the survey scoring itself. Jordan: It is all information about our perspectives - to be discussed and considered A survey can’t decide for us. 4. Introduce the identification of additional gaps: Does anyone have any? None Bart: let’s ask the same question at the next meeting. Are there additional gaps, other than the ones identified by iana? Please use the email list to respond 5. Introduce the consolidated policies: reminder a. Version 1: Consolidated overview RFC1591, FoI and Retirement policy:Background Materials and Document Library - ccNSO Workspace - Global Site<https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Materials+and+Doc…> (example page 5) b. Version 2: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Materials+and+Doc… Bart: this is an open item. This was one of the open issues, at the start of this work. An item on iana’s list, the consolidated policy. The ad hoc grop came up with 2 examples: * Rigid combo of RFC1591, FOI, and retitrement policies * Restructure the existing docs. Version 1, page 5 The light grey areas were considered obsolete. We added the FOI. interpretation - introduction section. This is the basis of RFC1591 as interpreted by FOI in use. Version 2 Suggested example approach Joke: wiki down. Cannot display 6. AOB none 7. Closure and next meeting PGA meeting: 4 March 2025 (20.00 UTC) Working session Seattle: Sat, 8 March 2025 (09:00-10:00 local | UTC -8) Members update and consultation: Tue, 11 March 2025 (17:30-18:30 local | UTC -7) Update to the GAC: Wed, 12 March 2025 (10:30-12:00 local | UTC -7) Maria: why -8 UTC and -7 UTC? Joke: seattle changes time during ICANN82 Thank you all. Bye Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG

1 0

PGA meeting starts in approx 30 min. Proposed agenda
by Joke Braeken Feb. 18, 2025

Feb. 18, 2025

Hello all, Enclosed please find the agenda for today’s PGA meeting, held on 18 February at noon UTC. I am also circulating again the survey results Jordan shared over the weekend. Best, Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG

1 0

CORRECTION: 18 February PGA meeting at noon UTC
by Joke Braeken Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Hi All, Apologies for the confusion! The 18 February meeting will be held at noon UTC. The 20 UTC meeting on 18 February has been cancelled. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/99469798225?pwd=oeaBwjejJQOFVQorMZmP6gwbUXDFXT.1 Meeting ID: 994 6979 8225 Passcode: PGAWG#0123 Best regards, Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG From: Jordan Carter via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Date: Sunday, 16 February 2025 at 20:05 To: Mirjana Tasić via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Cc: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic(a)rnids.rs>, Jordan Carter <jordan.carter(a)auda.org.au> Subject: [Ccnso-pgawg] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Two times for call on 18th of february Hi Mirjana, all, Thanks for raising this - the 12:00 UTC appointment is correct. @Secretariat could you please delete the other invitation? See you all then, Jordan Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage ________________________________ From: Mirjana Tasić via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 8:19:19 PM To: ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Cc: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic(a)rnids.rs> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [Ccnso-pgawg] Two times for call on 18th of february I have two entries in my calendar for call on 18th of february one at 12:00UTC and the other at 20:00 UTC. Which one is valid? Regards Mirjana

1 0

Canceled: Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 18 February 2025 at 20:00 UTC
by ccNSO Calendar Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

This meeting has been cancelled. PGA meets 18 February at noon UTC (not 20 UTC) Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 18 February 2025 at 20:00 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/FACxG Thank you!

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 18 February 2025 at 12:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 18 February 2025 at 12:00 UTC. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/99469798225?pwd=oeaBwjejJQOFVQorMZmP6gwbUXDFXT.1 Meeting ID: 994 6979 8225 Passcode: PGAWG#0123 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/FACxG Thank you!

3 2

Two times for call on 18th of february
by Mirjana Tasić Feb. 16, 2025

Feb. 16, 2025

I have two entries in my calendar for call on 18th of february one at 12:00UTC and the other at 20:00 UTC. Which one is valid? Regards Mirjana

2 1

PGA-WG Prioritization Framework survey findings
by Jordan Carter Feb. 16, 2025

Feb. 16, 2025

Hi all Attached are the results of our poll to inform our decisions on prioritising among our groups of issues. I've summarised the results at the bottom of our main analysis doc- and tidied it up a little. Here is the Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-… I've done it as a very simple table, showing the ranked issues by: * IANA priority * Impact on ccTLDs * Amount of work involved (least work is highest) They make for interesting reading. Please review the findings and have a think about them before the upcoming call. We will aim to have a 'first cut' of our preferred priority from this call. We will do a Second Reading of those findings at a subsequent call. Cheers Jordan

1 0

REMINDER | Policy Gap Analysis - Prioritization Framework Ranking Survey
by Claudia Ruiz Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

Dear all, Friendly reminder to please complete the survey by close of business Friday, 14 February. Thank you! Best regards, Claudia From: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter(a)auda.org.au> Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 at 10:38 PM To: Claudia Ruiz via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Cc: Claudia Ruiz <claudia.ruiz(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Ccnso-pgawg] Policy Gap Analysis - Prioritization Framework Ranking Survey Dear PGA-WG colleagues Please share your thinking on the survey as a matter of urgency, and definitely by this Friday close of business. That will give us time to look at the results and share them back with you before the call next week. Thanks Jordan From: Claudia Ruiz via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2025 5:03 PM To: ccNSO-PGAWG(a)icann.org Cc: Claudia Ruiz <claudia.ruiz(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [Ccnso-pgawg] Policy Gap Analysis - Prioritization Framework Ranking Survey Importance: High Dear all, During our last call on 04 February 2025, we discussed the Prioritization Framework. For your reference, here is the link to the Prioritization Framework google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I93Mb5JMrJIlSldIEfUH2TxoS4rb… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I…> Click this link to access the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/86MN32Q [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surveymonkey.com/r/86MN32Q__;!!PtGJa…> PGA WG wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/EgCxG (recording and notes are linked here) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact staff. Best regards, Claudia Ruiz

2 1

Policy Gap Analysis - Prioritization Framework Ranking Survey
by Claudia Ruiz Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

Dear all, During our last call on 04 February 2025, we discussed the Prioritization Framework. For your reference, here is the link to the Prioritization Framework google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I93Mb5JMrJIlSldIEfUH2TxoS4rb… Click this link to access the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/86MN32Q PGA WG wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/EgCxG (recording and notes are linked here) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact staff. Best regards, Claudia Ruiz

2 1

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 18 February 2025 at 20:00 UTC
by ccNSO Calendar Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 18 February 2025 at 20:00 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/FACxG Thank you!

1 0

NOTES | PGA WG | 4 Feb 2025 (4 UTC)
by Joke Braeken Feb. 4, 2025

Feb. 4, 2025

NOTES | PGA WG | 4 Feb 2025 (4 UTC) ACTION ITEM #1 * Staff to circulate this week an excel sheet to the PGA WG mailing list with instructions regarding the ranking * PGA WG members to individually rank the items in the sheet, as per the instructions 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Bart: to review language to support the study group. Add to doc 2. Admin matters a. SoI b. Update Outline ( See Outline: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… 3. Second reading of the decision about local presence Jordan: see PGA google doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-… Bart: level of local involvement. Approach for the issue Edits by Jordan Any questions regarding the additional language? None Do you agree? Only green marks Jordan: bottom of the doc, contains the groupings we agreed Happy to report back to Council. If the ccnso decides to progress with any of the study groups we proposed, some additional steps need to be taken. E.g. Terms of Reference to be created etc This doc closes. 4. Priority setting: what is considered important for ccTLD. Identifying criteria to set priority Jordan: draft prioritisation framework https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I93Mb5JMrJIlSldIEfUH2TxoS4rb… Proposed working method by Jordan. Individual thinking offline. Supported by several group members. DASC library uses a similar approach. Secretariat can assist. Peter: suggestion Jordan: 3 sections * Iana priorities. Already in order of priority * Impact on ccTLDs. Issue that would be helpful to resolve. High vs low score. * Amount of work involved Scoring process. Each of us to make 2 decisions. Are there other factors to take into account? Peter: makes sense. Iana list already prioritized. Importance over (perceived) urgency. Some questions are potentially politically delicate. No particular item in mind. Jordan: score political sensitivities. Alternatively, once the initial score is done, add it to the discussion. Thirdly, people could also mark those items with political sensitivity as such Bart: is the idea of the prioritisation the idea not to run study groups in parallel? PGA WG could advise it. You could also advice to council to revisit the order after 2 work items. Will take at least 3 years. so, picking the 2 most important items, and order them Jordan: for now just assessing the issues on their merits. Irina: agree. Impact on ccTLDs needs more clarification. Impact on image? Cctlds will need to immediate work? Or is it something that comes on the table when a ccTLD wants to make changes to the iana DB? To avoid we do not score it consistently? Jordan: what should a positive impact be? Irina: i read as an impact on the image of ccTLDs Jordan: creating work for ccTLDs might be seen as negative, but the improved reputation would be a positive impact. Positive impact on the reputation of ccTLDs, individually or collectively Irina: correct Atsushi: agree Jordan: are we happy with the process? With the factors listed? Once done, we will do a political sensitivity check Do you agree with the individual scores? Green marks Jordan: are you happy with the factors? Green marks Bart: method of consolidation? Jordan: adding up. Excel. Claudia is aware. DASC process Bart: iana list Peter: should we judge the iana priority as well? Medium aggregate could come from: medium from everybody, but low for some, and high for others. But we can do the ranking first, and then discuss Jordan: one sheet with added up numbers, another sheet with the anonymised votes. Claudia: ok Claudia will send out the sheet to the group this week. Deadline next week. Allow for time to aggregate the results 5. Next meetings: 4 February 04.00 UTC, 18 February 20.00 UTC 6. AOB None 7. Adjourn Thank you all Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 04 February 2025 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Feb. 4, 2025

Feb. 4, 2025

***REMINDER*** Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 04 February 2025 at 04:00 UTC. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/99469798225?pwd=oeaBwjejJQOFVQorMZmP6gwbUXDFXT.1 Meeting ID: 994 6979 8225 Passcode: PGAWG#0123 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/EgCxG Thank you!

1 0

Main agenda items today
by Jordan Carter Feb. 3, 2025

Feb. 3, 2025

Hi all As per our work plan [1], our main agenda items today are: * discuss and finalise the prioritisation framework - https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I93Mb5JMrJIlSldIEfUH2TxoS4rb… * Start considering whether there are policy gaps beyond the list raised by IANA. *Please read* the draft prioritisation framework before the call. Thanks Jordan [1] the work plan is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage

1 0

Notes | PGA | 28 January 2024
by Claudia Ruiz Feb. 2, 2025

Feb. 2, 2025

Notes | PGA | 28 January 2024 Agenda 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan 1. Admin matters * SoI None - any changes, please send to secretariat 2. Update Outline ( See Outline: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… This is a living document and it is updated after each meeting, the document is always available. Beyond the gaps that were identified by IANA that we have been working through so far, is anyone aware of any other gaps? We can start moving towards preparation of the sessions at ICANN. 3. Support Overview of policies and practices Bart: We had 1 response from Eberhard that was positive, supportive and no further feedback from anyone else. Should be submitted to council at some point. Jordan: If you consider the Overview adopted, please pop a green tick and if you don’t agree pop a red x. All green ticks, the Overview is adopted. The PGA will ask ccNSO council to formally endorse it after sharing it with the members in Seattle. Bart: Important to note, will ask Council to have it maintained or maintain the document because it is a living document once the PGA is done. 4. Complete Analysis/method combination: open topic, method, if any, regarding the minimum level of involvement of the ccTLD Manager See notes added to PGA working doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-… Bart: G- Minimum level of involvement, Strawdog - after extensive discussion, people raised concern with the need to understand the scope of the issue. After some preliminary research on the level of involvement of ccTLD managers, it is a fascinating point to look at. Peter raised a point, why have a cross community WG? Why not start with a study group to really understand and appreciate the scope of the issue? This was a little related to local presence. If you just have a ccTLD manager or admin contact in country the whole operation is outsourced to another country. The local presence becomes part of the equation. Suggestion: Revisit this and check whether you still believe the method would be framework of interpretation like group or start with a study group and maybe link it to the local presence discussion (like we did in Item A,B and C) Recap of the discussion. Any additional comments? Peter- Don’t completely recall previous discussion but I believe a CCWG is a very strong vehicle and this discussion of minimum level of involvement could benefit from a broader understanding before we invite other parts of the community that might misread this minimum level and what that means. Chris - agree with Peter, I think CCWG on this sort of thing is a recipe for activism and capture by people who don’t have the best interest of ccTLDs at heart so I would be concerned about that. Jordan - challenging topic because we can’t have a Policy Framework for these public resources that’s only developed by the people who already control them. We can’t have ccTLDs considering the future of ccTLDs. But on the other hand doing some work inside our community to scope the issue before plunging into a broader discussion doesn’t seem like an unreasonable thing to do. Chris: The Policy we set as ccNSO is set in respect to the way we want IANA to deal with ccTLDs. It would be quite challenging to set a policy that says a ccTLD must have local involvement because it’s a matter for the state concerned. A concern is that we are setting a policy that is unenforceable. Kim - a couple of observations, operational challenges because there’s not that detail on how to interpret sort of high level principles. In many regards judgement is put on IANA where we feel that there should be more explicit direction from Policy and other observation is this is made binding on ccTLD managers themselves and this would be guidance to IANA on how to assess requests like ccTLD transfer. On the fip side a call for revocation for cause that they are not meeting this requirement. I would have a clearer mandate to explore these potential dimensions where currently there’s just a lot of vagueness. Bart: It is my understanding that this is not as high a priority from IANA as for example accuracy of data. If I listened to this broad discussion, some of the issues involved in the work. A cross community group is the best way to address problems. The statement from a ccNSO perspective is not clear and that could be a role of such a study group. The role could be to clarify the scope, request for advice like we do right now with a full understanding of the scope and the issues related. Next step is to have a discussion we are having right now. The main focus is people need to understand the issues involved, that might be something to take into account with all these study groups. Jordan: Agree that in kicking off any future work the 1st part of the work is clarifying the question. Chris: Agree with Kim, IANA can always use more guidance. The challenge is guide rails guidelines, guidance policy. Once you start down the road you're looking at , When we say local presence what do you mean? When is it possible to not have local presence? How much climate change has to happen in the Pacific etc the real question would be,is harm being done by some ccTL:Ds not having a local presence. And if harm is being done, what is the harm and how can it be corrected? Jordan: Cross community discussion is needed Study group approach might ask some stakeholders for their input but it’s not going to incorporate them in a formal structure. Kim: lack of clarity, lack of proper expectation around these things is causing problems Jordan: Happy to have a principle agreement for that on this call and to come back to them at the next call. To reinstate the proposal - Instead of recommending that language about CCWG, it would be a study group to investigate the issue, to solicit some thoughts from other ICANN stakeholders around this issue and analyzing it and proposing what future work might be required. It might recommend a PDP, it might recommend creating some guidelines, We don’t need to prejudge that. Action point from Jordan- Study group to investigate issues, involve other stakeholders, and advise on next steps. All green ticks and no red marks. Irina suggested that we group a minimum level of involvement with local presence as topics to study together. I’m pretty sure that with local presence we suggested a study group is the way to go, it does interest other stakeholders. So we could group those two together, It seems to be a logical connection. Does anyone have a case for not grouping them together? All green ticks for this item Add language to row G- 5. Priority setting: what is considered important for ccTLD. Identifying criteria to set priority Jordan: We have a set of issues and methods to address them, we need a ranked list. What will make the biggest issue? What is the most important issue and – resolved. For the next 10 mins - I invite people to throw out ideas of issues- start the conversation, see if there are any novel suggestions. Nick: Technical function is the highest priority for us, ccTLDs are privileged about being able to self govern.If IANA is finding operational problematic which is affecting the reputational credibility of the ccTLDs as a whole then would be something I would make a priority, Irina: The easy and obvious for IANA - the fastest ones to solve and have quick results. Kim: IANA provided their list. With that said , another dimension to consider is if the outcome / learnings of one will help make the others more successful. Right now there is little activity in terms of pending requests. There are extant issues which are publicly known in certain countries that are long simmering concerns, further guidance would help move those along in one direction or another. Last observation is data quality. It's been a long issue that we have inaccurate data for a significant number of ccTLDs, they don’t communicate with us and there is a deterioration of the quality of the records. Chris: Agree with Kim’s prioritize list should be a starting point. Low hanging fruit is a good point, if there are matters on the list that are the easiest, simplest, and most effective way to deal with it is to offer guidance then perhaps we could treat that separately and have a group dedicated to dealing with that. To Kim’s point out, the long standing issues, we need to be careful and treat them tactfully and carefully, address gaps where we know there are ccTLD currently dealing with that. We need to be conscious of the fact that there will be some areas where there is a specific country dispute going on and there is a specific issue with the ccTLD manager. We need to be very careful stepping in to that sort of territory . Jordan: Are you saying to be careful because it could be a minefield or because we should decide to decline dealing with issues where there might be a dispute where is would make a big difference to a particular ccTLD. Chris: The first, stepping into a minefield. But if you look at the fundamental way that IANA deals with the dispute it is often to go and sort it out at home. If we find ourselves in a policy making mode where there is an existing dispute we need to be really careful we are not seen to be, sorry I am not putting this very well. My concern is we don’t step into areas where individual ccTLDs feel targeted. Jordan: A few factors, technical functions, things that impact the trust of ccTLDs, IANA priorities, priorities quickest to solve or low hanging fruit. Some where the outcome of one might help solve more than one problem at a time. This is a good initial discussion. If you think of any more please send an email. Question for Kim: Can you give us a min on how IANA prioritized this list. Kim: We weren’t too scientific about it, made a list and circulated it to the operational team. I wouldn’t suggest we put a lot of thought into the ordering of it. Jordan: Ok, that’s often how these things are. 6. Next meetings: 4 February 04.00 UTC, 18 February 20.00 UTC 18 Feb is now at 20 UTC to avoid conflict with the APTLD meeting in Hong Kong, I hope this does not cause issues with anyone. 7. AOB no other business 8. Adjourn

2 1

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 04 February 2025 at 04:00 UTC
by ccNSO Calendar Feb. 2, 2025

Feb. 2, 2025

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 04 February 2025 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/EgCxG Thank you!

1 0