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-pr... 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-s...
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@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF