- Ccnso-pgawg - lists.icann.org

NOTES | PGA | 9 November 2024 (10:30 local)
by Joke Braeken Nov. 9, 2024

Nov. 9, 2024

NOTES | PGA | 9 November 2024 (10:30 local) 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Target: presenting the findings to ccNSO later this meeting. We will present as much as we managed to review. We have a draft set of analysis. It was circulated prior to the meeting, but you might not have had time to review it. 2. Administrative matters a. Updates Statements of Interest 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… 3. Confirm overview Bart: see clean version of the doc. As adopted by the WG on tuesday morning at 5 am my time. Overview started by Kim Davies. Policies, practices, guidance, advice for ccTLDs. Captured in one doc. Will be published on ccnso website. Library with relevant documentation. 5 categories Jordan: The Google Doc is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edi First draft was initiated in April this year. Anybody any questions or comments regarding this document? Nick: for clarity. It is on the record that there are dissenting opinions. In terms of having a discrete piece of work, we want to narrow it to the relations between iana en ccTLDs. Not focus on financial contributions. Different workstream. Core of the problem. Jordan: we need to know what the existing body of policy is. The fact that it is in this overview, does not mean there is a gap. Mere single point where to find everything. This is not to suppose anything about gaps. This is a resource for the community. Is anything missing? PK: nothing missing. I second Nick’s observation, and the following clarification. Let’s emphasise the purpose of the doc a bit better. Title might be confusing. Not necessarily a policy gap. Other SO/ACs might have an interest. Let’s not create confusion. Jordan: good point. I will clean it up before we publish it. Thanks to Bart for drafting it. 4. Issue: type of gap and prioritisation Jordan: Draft. Just a first working draft. Was circulated by Joke https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-… >>> Issue A - data accuracy Bart: issue for compliance. There are mechanisms for IANA. See item 3. Also discussed in Kigali. Renovation for cause PK: data accuracy. Can it be considered accurate enough? Not a yes/no. The task of the RZ registry is to make sure the data is accurate enough to tell between the 2 or more competing parties. Warning agains continuing to use that term. We need to be more precise. Nick: strongly believes ccTLDs need to keep their contact details up to date Kim: unsure. Assumption about what data elements are there, for what purpose. We do not have a practice in this area. IANA should feel empowered to act. Consensus around that. Irina: confusion about the scope of the policy here. We always saif that the cc policies were directed at icann and iana. Here we discuss the obligations of the cctld managers. Jordan: how should the community take a decision? Irina: currently no mechanism for telling the cctld manager what he must do. No idea Jordan: interesting table. Existential issue for the ccnso. Data accuracy is as imposing an obligation on cctld manager. But also about iana, what iana can do about a lack of policy. Irina: iana should have mechanism in place. Right place is to start with the purpose. Why do we need the data? To do what? Maybe that is the easier path. Stephen: an error in postal code …? Not a substantial misbehaviour. PVR: 10% of data being accurate in iana DB? Kim presented on it. We need to look closer at that number Purpose of accuracy was to ensure security and stability. Therefor, tech-c as most important one. Chris: data accuracy and remedies. Not the path. Let’s talk about what we can do, if we agree that accuracy is important. Responsible cctld managers. How to deal with it? Definition of what needs to be accurate. Iana or ccnso to publish a list that failed to provide accurate data, after a few reminders. Name and shame. Jordan: no appetite for policy. Do analysis of the level of accuracy. Name and shame approach, only suggest this after we looked at the problem Chris: different issue. Data helps you to define what another issue is. The issue is not data accuracy Jordan: we might want to do some study into this, but not a PDP. there are other priorities >>> issue B Nick: agree. The iana DB is not a thin registry Personal data voluntarily submitte.d why do we require data? How do we use it? Simple exercise Irina: agree. We say public record. But there are also non-public records. Probably also important for IANA. should we discuss them in the scope for this? Pablo: people can go to the DB to find the info they need. Example of use of the data Kim: we do not feel it is a policy gap. This is about the public nature. As a practical matter, we have TLD managers that ask us, which persons should we use for these records? We tell them it will be public. If iana is empowered to make a statement what “useful” is, we can make a strawman. What is an admin issue? A tech issue? An abuse issue? Jordan: low key study group type of approach. Pablo: mayhem in society. We have responsibility. I do not have to become the police man. Jordan: out of scope for our work. Perhaps take up with DASC. Bart: do you want to link this with topic A? Jordan: yes. They can be considered together. Group agrees >>> item C PK: not tied to previous point. But nonetheless. Suggest to reassess after the study of point A happened. What are we talking about? Do we need the process? >>> item D Jordan: suggestion. Implementation gap. There is a policy. Such changes after approval. Enforcement framework. Study group or similar type of approach. Chris: not an issue with it. But i do have an issue with calling it a CCWG Kim: parties within the country feel they have the unilateral right to make such decisions. >>> Item E Chris: the current policy cannot be met in certain circumstances. Is it strictly necessary, given the modern world we live in? Because of the internet Kim: meaningful operational nexus, for legal purposes? No basis to require the cctld manager needs to be in jurisdiction. Iana does not have right to demand anything more. Penguin islands, Australia as parent country. Was sufficient for a long time. PK: In-country presence not being possible? Does not invalidate the rule. Some cases where other parties have a political interest in a more advanced understanding of what this clause means. Chris: 2-letter code representing the territory. Stephen: you need to read RFC1591 in conjunction with FOI Jordan: nothing more intense than a study group. 5. PGA WG at ICANN 81 a. ccNSO Members Meeting: update session | Tue, 12 November at 15:00-16:00 local Jordan: update on work done since last meeting. Introduction on dialogue around the first 5 issues. See if there is any feedback on that. Work will need to continue. That is what we need to tell Council. 1. Joint session: ccNSO & GAC | Wed, 13 November at 09:00-10:00 local Bart: We offered an update Other topics: WSIS+20, DASC survey. We will prepare light slides to support that. 6. AOB 7. Closure and next meeting Thanks. Bye all Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF

1 0

ICANN81 - PGA WG
by Claudia Ruiz Nov. 8, 2024

Nov. 8, 2024

ICANN81 - ccNSO: Policy Gap Analysis Working Group<https://icann81.sched.com/> Saturday November 9, 2024 10:30 - 12:00 GMT+03 3B01<https://icann81.sched.com/venue/3B01> 10:30 Turkey (UTC +3), 9 November 2024 07:30 UTC, 9 November 2024. 3B01 ID# 16037. Participation Links To help reduce session disruptions, please do not share Zoom participation links on social media. However, we encourage you to share YouTube livestream links (when available) on social media. To ensure transparency of participation in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, please remember to sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name (e.g. First Name + Last Name/Surname). • Zoom Meeting Link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/91017066669?pwd=w6oDPuIq14Dk8173FP2crNjW2Nc38n.1 • Zoom Meeting ID: 910 1706 6669 • Zoom Meeting Passcode: ad#tEek1a@ • Zoom International Dial-In Numbers: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ac7QJvXUGO • Zoom Phone Passcode: 631 217 8587 Interpretation Service • Languages Available: English Session Details The ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) will hold an internal work session. The objective of the PGA WG is to identify, analyze, and advise Council if and how to address gaps in existing ccNSO policies policies, guidance or practices pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs, and other related IANA Naming Functions for ccTLDs. Read more: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF Session Leader: Bart Boswinkel Staff Facilitator: Claudia Ruiz

1 0

ICANN81 - PGA WG
by Claudia Ruiz Nov. 8, 2024

Nov. 8, 2024

ICANN81 - ccNSO: Policy Gap Analysis Working Group<https://icann81.sched.com/> Saturday November 9, 2024 10:30 - 12:00 GMT+03 3B01<https://icann81.sched.com/venue/3B01> 10:30 Turkey (UTC +3), 9 November 2024 07:30 UTC, 9 November 2024. 3B01 ID# 16037. Participation Links To help reduce session disruptions, please do not share Zoom participation links on social media. However, we encourage you to share YouTube livestream links (when available) on social media. To ensure transparency of participation in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, please remember to sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name (e.g. First Name + Last Name/Surname). • Zoom Meeting Link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/91017066669?pwd=w6oDPuIq14Dk8173FP2crNjW2Nc38n.1 • Zoom Meeting ID: 910 1706 6669 • Zoom Meeting Passcode: ad#tEek1a@ • Zoom International Dial-In Numbers: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ac7QJvXUGO • Zoom Phone Passcode: 631 217 8587 Interpretation Service • Languages Available: English Session Details The ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) will hold an internal work session. The objective of the PGA WG is to identify, analyze, and advise Council if and how to address gaps in existing ccNSO policies policies, guidance or practices pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs, and other related IANA Naming Functions for ccTLDs. Read more: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF Session Leader: Bart Boswinkel Staff Facilitator: Claudia Ruiz

1 0

draft PGA-WG Issues List - Working Draft Analysis for ICANN81
by Joke Braeken Nov. 6, 2024

Nov. 6, 2024

Hello All, As discussed during the 5 November PGA meeting, here is the draft PGA-WG Issues List - Working Draft Analysis for ICANN81. Please review, and add any comments or suggestions you may have prior to the PGA meeting on Saturday at ICANN81 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-… The link to the doc has also been added to the PGA workspace. See https://community.icann.org/x/bgKxFQ This document provides a first working draft of proposed analysis of the issues identified so far by the ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis Working Group. For each issue it identifies the type of issue (Policy gap, Guidance on policy gap, Implementation gap, Unforeseen incident, Not a gap) ) and the method that would be used to address it. As a first draft, the contents will change significantly. Here is a proposed agenda (ICANN81 | PGA WG | 9 Nov 2024<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GhF4OU9YKyPpTjCR9iCmVrgcywWQKDSiT0h…>) for the next PGA meeting on Saturday 1. Welcome 2. Administrative matters * Updates Statements of Interest 3. Confirm overview doc 4. Issue: type of gap and prioritisation 5. PGA WG at ICANN 81 * ccNSO Members Meeting: update session | Tue, 12 November at 15:00-16:00 local * Joint session: ccNSO & GAC | Wed, 13 November at 09:00-10:00 local 6. AOB 7. Closure and next meeting Best regards. Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF

1 0

NOTES | PGA WG | 5 November 2024 (04:00 UTC)
by Joke Braeken Nov. 5, 2024

Nov. 5, 2024

NOTES | PGA WG | 5 November 2024 (04:00 UTC) 1. Welcome & Roll Call Welcome by chair Jordan 2. Admin matters a. SoI updates, if any 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… 1. Updated work plan PGA Working Group: Outline Workplan<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t…> Decision to take. Take the list identified by iana and rank them in order of priority. Are they policy gaps? Implementation gaps? What is the proposed way to address them? 2 options: strawdog. Or mentimeter. 3. Continue assessment IANA issues: Confidentiality of (change) requests (slides 5-10) Jordan: we will use mentimeter for this Kim: confidentiality requirement. We can disclose that there is a request active, but no more can be disclosed. We do not publish detailed analysis, correspondence received etc. that has been our practice. An inherited practice. Not stated in policy. There is a trade off. It is not driven by a strong need from our side that things need to change. We have an assumed practice. We have some tradeoffs. Are they the right ones? Should the process be more transparent? Jordan: regarding the middle line. In the naming services contract? Kim: It must be. I will have a look. Peter: question regarding 2nd last item. Scope and extent of that desire? Is it a random party? Significant interested party? How often did it happen? Kim: dialogue at a ccNSO meeting 10 years ago. Some argued the process should be transparent by default. The suggestion was made to open them for public comment. Feedback in the process. In private discussions, how do we even know a request is pending? We told them there is a monthly report. It is relatively buried. Noticed the first time when it is on the icann board meeting agenda. Some feel it should be known more earlier in the process. Not fiercely argued. Stephen: if we receive a transfer request for a TLD, do you notify the current operator? Kim: absolutely. Consent by the incumbent manager. Unless it would be a revocation for cause. Has never happened. In a standard case, they are informed immediately. PVR: the confidentiality aims to protect the reputation of the ccTLD manager? Can the cctld manager waive the confidentiality of the process? Kim: we tell the customer “you are free to disclose”. We even encourage it. We do ask the applicant to show how they engaged with the community. A lot of them come short on that area. We advise” minutes of meetings and the parties you met with in the country. Are they significantly interested parties? Organise a local consultation. We put it on the applicant to have that level of transparency themselves. [cid:image001.png@01DB2F48.2B821DE0] 4. Review Policy/Practiced Overview document: Overview Applicable policies & Advisories version 1.docx<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit> Bart: questions re intro? None Bart: do you agree and support the intro text? If so, i will accept the changes Green marks in Zoom Addressing peter koch his concern As part of the iana naming services contract, a final step in the resolution process involves the ombudsman. It is not a separate channel for dispute resolution from that perspective. PK: that describes the current situation The iana naming contract is currently under review. Understood that the ombudsman has never been invoked in the past. There might be a recommendation to skipt this, depending on the conclusions of the review team Bart: updates might be necessary Jordan: each time one of the key referred docs changes, this will indeed need an update Kim: 3 to 5 ombuds referred issues per year. Not a point of escalation. Bart: ombuds is not only part of the complaint procedure, but is also a separate channel for disputes. 2 ways for a ccTLD to get to the ombuds. Use of term redelegation. Bylaw changes came around when FOI was adopted. The language in the FOI as adopted by the board was not in the doc. Does it include revocation? Was then discussed with the board. It does not include retirement. In the ccPDP3-RM is to exclude IRT and the reconsideration procedure. (note from Joke, based on ccPDP3-RM FAQ<https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccpdp3-review-me…>: The working group that developed the Review Mechanism policy recommends that all disputes and claims regarding the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs remain and are excluded from ICANN’s Reconsideration Request Process and the Independent Review Process (see ICANN Bylaws Sections 4.2 (d) (i) and 4.3 (c) (ii)), and recommends the amendment of the Bylaws accordingly.) Bart: voluntary practices. Guidance or advice. Any question regarding the new text? None Do you support? No red marks Any questions or comments regarding the structure? None Do you support? No red marks Section 5. Including the financial contribution guideline Any questions, comments or concerns to include it as a second category? None Do you support? No red marks The overview is now complete. We will clean it up and discuss again in Istanbul. 5. Summary findings to date (slide 11-44) Theme, topic, description from Kim’s paper, and then the voting on how you would assess the various topics. This is the basis on how to deal with the items. One more observation: see slide 43 Kim: please present all responses in the same method. Vertical or horizontal display Bart: limitations of mentimeter. Depending on original settings. Bart: PK’s comment on disaster recovery not impacting the european ccTLDs from 2 weeks ago. Relates to the point that in Europe NIS2 is looking at disaster recovery. National requirement. Please confirm? PK: NIS2 directive only covers the European Union. With that restriction, that was the gist of the message. Some countries have it in their national law. Bart: people were concerned about the remark Due to the environment in which the EU ccTLDs operate Jordan: it highlights the fact that there is a lot of context in these debates. Great to get feedback, either through me or Maria, that we can tease it out, if something sounds strange. 6. Strawdog or Mentimeter to determine nature of Gap? (slides 47-52) Jordan: a strawdog might speed it up. But worried that we do not have enough time. Work through this organically? Or do you want us to shape a strawdog, PVR: a strawdog would be my preference. Would we see it in advance? Jordan: would be necessary. Meeting is on saturday I can do that tonight, and secretariat to work on this tomorrow. Anyone disagree? Jordan: speed up our dialogue. 7. Priority setting (slide 53) 8. Agenda In-person meeting (slide 54) 9. AOB 10. Next meetings Thank you all. Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 05 November 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Nov. 5, 2024

Nov. 5, 2024

***REMINDER*** Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 04 November 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/ZYDMFg Thank you!

2 1

Agenda and background material upcoming meeting 04 November 2024 at 04:00 UTC.
by Bart Boswinkel Nov. 4, 2024

Nov. 4, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the agenda and material for the upcoming meeting of the PGA WG 04 November 2024 at 04:00 UTC. Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Admin matters * SoI updates, if any * Updated work plan https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t…: 3. Continue assessment IANA issues: Confidentiality of (change) requests (slides 5-10) 4. Review Policy/Practiced Overview document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit 5. Summary findings to date (slide 11-44) 6. Strawdog or Mentimeter to determine nature of Gap? (slides 47-52) 7. Priority setting (slide 53) 8. Agenda In-person meeting (slide 54) 9. AOB 10. Next meetings

2 1

NOTES | PGA | 22 October 2024 (noon UTC)
by Joke Braeken Oct. 22, 2024

Oct. 22, 2024

NOTES | PGA | 22 October 2024 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Chair Jordan 2. Admin matters a. SoI updates, if any 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… Jordan: anybody that has not completed their SOI yet? Bart: we have not checked Stephen: same SOI for ccNSO and GNSO? Bart: no. please submit your ccNSO SOI. you might have done so already for council Jordan: you can check yourselves. Go to link Joke posted in the chat. 1. Update Work plan https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… Bart speaks to the latest version November meeting: assessing outcomes of the analysis of the IANA gaps. Are there issues? How do you qualify it? Next week we will talk about gaps. Gaps in policy? In implementation? Which issues to address first? That will be presented to the community. Jordan: up to 9 Nov deep dive into the issues. On the 9th of november, we will finalise the prioritization. We will ask the community for their views and mandate. Time-limited process up to istanbul. After ICANN 81, think about whether you intend to continue your work in this group. 1. Scope of PGA Good input from iana. Never been our view that the only gaps are those identified by iana. Our mandate is wider, beyond iana’s perspectives. Peter (.de): nobody approached Council so far. Is the window still open? Not eager to do gap hunting. Jordan: no formal ask. But we did during the sessions so far. Consider this for ICANN 81. Do we want to make that question again? Hoping that people’s engagement with this question has increased. 3. Finalize overview of policy (related) and other documents https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit a. Introduction updated 1. Introduction section 5 Dispute resolution updated, and reference to Ombudsman, maintained. Bart: ombudsman. Mechanism as per bylaws. But independent ccTLDs as direct customers from IANA can launch a complaint. Will be handled by PTI itself. Therefor not independent. Peter (.de): table refers to art 5 of the bylaws. This assignment is done in the naming functions contract. There should be an additional source. Could be altered. Recall some confusion about the scope. Ombuds to address primarily issues of conduct. Bart: complaint procedure and mediation procedure as part of iana naming functions contract. Available to direct customers. Ombuds is a separate track. Peter: “source doc” means: source that provides this mechanism? Jordan: doc that establishes that process. What constitutes that process. Peter: still confused. The contract needs to be mentioned. Because it invokes the mechanism specifically for the customers of iana. If we have 2 paths, both need to be mentioned. Bart: the ccPDP3-RM is not related to the iana naming services contract Jordan: there are 3 questions. Let’s take this offline. Q1. does the naming services contract define a role for the ombuds in dealing with disputes? Q2. that wording in that section 4 introduction Q3. The Icann Ombudsman's role. Does it relate to disputes as IANA function customers, or as I can, community participants or both. 1. Introduction section 5 updated Bart: questions regarding proposed simplification? None Bart: financial contributions Jordan: status. 2 peters had concerns to include this guidance. Others did not Bart: reason for including, entered into the relation. Developed by the ccnso to assist ccTLDs. Part of relation between ccTLDs and ICANN. Peter (.de): i still disagree to include it. Unhappy, but not in excess. Chris: what is the gap? Jordan: all practice and guidance in this doc Chris: are we adding everything in here? Bart: if you do not include this, why include guidance on accountability frameworks? What is the issue in including both? Chris: what discussion is this supposed to inform? Is there going to be an analysis to identify … ? Bart: no. aim was to have a central point with info for ccTLDs Jordan: in the context of the global policy framework. Chris: in that case it makes sense Kim: nothing in that table influences how icann performs the naming functions Jordan: good to know Let’s park this. Chris: not sure that these 4 docs all have the same standing. If you put them in the same chart, there is an implication that they have the same standing. Bart: let’s finalize in Istanbul. It determines what to present to the community in Istanbul 4. Complete analysis of issues (Mentimeter slides and instructions to join included Mentimeter. Please note Mentimeter is NOT open yet) a. Revisit concluding polls themes: Local Presence, Minimum Level of Involvement, and Active Compliance Monitoring [cid:image001.png@01DB2497.A1FF5B10] 1. Discussion and polling themes: Disaster Recovery & Request Confidentiality Kim: no requirement for escrow in ccTLD context. Unclear what the expectations are. Policy does not allow us to do anything on a formal basis. Cctlds cannot provide us with tools to do disaster recovery. Not explored. We recommend ccTLDs to think about these issues in advance. We do not follow up on this. Is this an area to evolve policy? Peter (.de): this is a question one asks in contingency planning. Some were lucky to be in the EU. how prevalent is this problem? Kim: not that prevalent. ccTLDs operate well. There has been some disaster scenarios. [cid:image002.png@01DB2497.A1FF5B10] Polling could not be completed fully as planned 1. Next steps Bart: there are 2 open questions. Q1. if sth is considered an issue, what kind of issue is it? Final step would be to categorise the issues. Once we have the picture, we can set priorities. The combination of gap and method will determine what the ccnso can do Suggestion is to use mentimeter again. In istanbul: discussion. And agree on priorities Jordan: food for thought. 5. Next meetings 5 November 2024 | 4 UTC 9 November 2024 @ ICANN 81 – PGA working session 12 November 2024 @ ICANN 81 – PGA update & community consultation session 26 November 2024 10 December 2024 Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF

1 0

Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) | 05 November 2024 at 04:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz Oct. 22, 2024

Oct. 22, 2024

Dear all, The next Policy Gap Analysis Working Group teleconference is scheduled for 04 November 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/ZYDMFg Thank you!

1 0

Re: Meeting PGA WG Tuesday 22 October, noon UTC
by Joke Braeken Oct. 22, 2024

Oct. 22, 2024

Hello all, Circulating again the agenda (below), background materials (enclosed) and instructions for mentimeter (enclosed). Join menti.com and use code 6171228 Best regards. Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF From: Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 18 October 2024 at 11:28 To: "ccNSO-pgawg(a)icann.org" <ccnso-pgawg(a)icann.org> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ccnso-pgawg] Meeting PGA WG Tuesday 22 October, noon UTC Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda, and (links to) material for the upcoming PGA WG meeting on Tuesday 22 October 2024, noon UTC. Kind regards, Bart Draft agenda 1. Welcome 2. Admin matters * SoI updates, if any * Update Work plan (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5t… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf…> * Scope of PGA 3. Finalize overview of policy (related) and other documents (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1n…>) * Introduction updated * Introduction section 5 Dispute resolution updated, and reference to Ombudsman, maintained. * Introduction section 5 updated 4. Complete analysis of issues (Mentimeter slides and instructions to join included Mentimeter. Please note Mentimeter is NOT open yet) * Revisit concluding polls themes: Local Presence, Minimum Level of Involvement, and Active Compliance Monitoring * Discussion and polling themes: Disaster Recovery & Request Confidentiality * Next steps 5. Next meetings: * 5 November 2024 * 9 November 2024 @ ICANN81 * 12 November – PGA update & community consultation session ICANN81 * 26 November 2024 * 10 December 2024

1 0