NOTES | PGA | 22 October 2024 (noon UTC)
- 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
Consult the ccNSO SOI Guideline:
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.
- Update Work plan
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5txgbg/edit
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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
Polling could not be completed fully as planned
- 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