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-pr... 1. Updated work plan PGA Working Group: Outline Workplan<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5tx...> 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 We do not publish detailed analysis, correspondence received etc.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-mec...>: 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@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF
