NOTES | PGA | 29 April 2025 (17 UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Thank you to Bart for writing the draft final report and to those who read it 2. First reading We can accept the editorial edits, but let’s clean up offline Summary of our work and recommendations. We do not repeat annex A, B, C Focus is on the first part of this report. Bart: Kim suggested friendly amendments to Annex A. If I have questions, I will get back to Kim. During the final call, the group needs to accept the full doc. Jordan: any questions regarding the process? None Bart: 2 weeks ago Bart introduced the broad structure of the doc, and afterwards he started adding some text. Included are the recommendations. In the text, per section Start with the introduction, and then the rest of the document.
Section 1
No substantial changes, only editorial ones Questions or comments about this section? None Jordan: I broke the labeling of the objectives/tasks. Should be the same word. 3 objectives
Section 2
Overview of policies. Any questions/comments? Bart: overview itself is included in Annex A Up to council how they want to maintain the overview. Are you in favour of recommendation 1? Green ticks, no red ones.
Section 3
Bart: core of the doc. Questions regarding text up to item 6, request confidentiality None Regarding deciding priorities Questions or comments? None Recommendation 1 Questions or comments? None Green marks, no red ones Section 3.2 Recommendations on how to structure WG. up to council? Comment by Peter. Not be too prescriptive. Jordan: i am comfortable with the amount of detail there Chris: it is study group. Important to make that distinction between study group and working group. The group is meant to study stuff. That’s all. Any questions or comments? None Do you agree? Green marks Section 3.3 Any questions or comments? None Group agrees with section 3.3. Recommendation 3 Irina: good to have the advice in the text of the report. However, should this be in the recommendation? The process is there. How to do that is up to Council. Bart: ccnso does not have it. Whether it is a real committee, or just chairs and vice chairs, is another thing. You do not want to have a standing committee that is dormant for a while. If nothing is happening in 2 to 3 years, why establish a committee Jordan: suggestions for what the ccnso could do, included twice. As the first study group comes to an end, look to the process. No strong view. Council will look carefully at the whole report. It does not matter too much in the text of the recommendation. Irina: first paragraph in rec3 would probably be enough. Do you agree with rec3? Section 3.4. Irina: just a list of issue types and methods. Bart: listing various gaps and methods. Nothing else. No order in the listing. Details included in Annex C Irina: make sure it is clear for any potential reader. Final sentence. For future reference and use, you are referred to annex C Green marks in zoom Kim: comment regarding adoption Bart: adoption the doc as it stands. Alternative word, before we circulate this again Jordan: the word is ok. But the process? No-one knows what the word “adopt” means? Kim: exactly. What are the consequences? Jordan: formally receives…. Or agrees to publish. Bart: will check with recommendation in the text Jordan: a bit more context. What is this about. Why does it matter? Do not go straight into the recommendation. Or call it “summary of the recommendations” Page 10 Kim: ensure consistency Bart: second reading as online silence procedure Jordan: 7 day comment period. If needed, we have a meetimng Bart: we might not need to meet Jordan: let’s meet in 2 weeks. Might be a short meeting Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>