Thanks Irina I doubt we can find times that don’t clash something but- I would like to suggest actually that we do a modified cadence that does solve this problem: 28 January 4 February 18 February 4 March If we continue with the current two-week cadence, from 28 Jan, we will only get three meetings before Seattle, and we may need the extra my proposal creates. Jordan Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage ________________________________ From: Irina Danelia via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 7:33:44 PM To: ccnso-pgawg@icann.org <ccnso-pgawg@icann.org> Cc: Irina Danelia <i.danelia@cctld.ru> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [Ccnso-pgawg] Re: NOTES | PGA WG | 26 Nov 2024 (4 UTC) Thanks Joke! @Jordan Regarding next meetings preference to restart on 28 jan. meeting then every 2 weeks. Feb,11 (next after Jan, 28) will conflict with APTLD87 From: Joke Braeken via Ccnso-pgawg <ccnso-pgawg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 8:02 AM To: ccnso-pgawg@icann.org Cc: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Subject: [Ccnso-pgawg] NOTES | PGA WG | 26 Nov 2024 (4 UTC) NOTES | PGA WG | 26 Nov 2024 1. Welcome Welcome by Vice Chair Maria Camilla. Jordan attended, but is not feeling well. 2. Admin. Matters a. SoI 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: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-internal-pr... 1. Council decision to extend mandate of group See Council Decision ICANN 81 1. Update workplan https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5tx... Original plan: complete the gap analysis by ICANN 81. But takes more time than anticipated. Tentatively: now finalise the analysis on 10 December. Preference for the 28th of January to reconvene. 3. Review of ICANN81 sessions a. WG session Held on Saturday. 90 min session. Fruitful. Extensive discussion on the first 5 points on the iana issues. In person component Grasping the issues themselves through mentimeter. Getting everybody up to speed. Now to ensure that you have some text in front of you. Change of method. To see how that works out in a virtual environment 1. Update to community (see attached pdf) Bart: Jordan updated the community. Pablo: good to remind all about the topic. Ask for community views. Maria: I did attend remotely. How to engage more? How to present the results and info? Many comments that people were not aware of the topic. Bart: probably give people a heads up prior to ICANN82 Pablo: promote the workshop Diego: in line with DASC work at LACTLD, use LACTLD, the policy WG Promote the news via email or via the whatsapp group Peter: difference between the standing committee efforts, and a one-time effort Bart: it will affect ccTLDs Peter: concerned about obsessions with numbers. Jordan: focus of engagement next year could be on socialising. We only have Jan/Feb to get ready for ICANN82. An engagement effort could be in different timezones. Explain what we do, recommend how to deal with the topics. Announce we will be looking for feedback at ICANN82. Do not spend too much time on explaining the process. With some standing committees you want to highlight the work, and get more people involved and do the work. We do not need new volunteers Bart: DASC was on the survey. Not about getting new volunteers Atsushi: fine with engagement with ROs on progress to date. Not in favout to ask RO’s to formally send (non) support. That will create a mess for our WG. Bart: let’s revisit early Feb. check what to present with the ccTLDs in the region. Using a WG in the region? Doing a webinar for people in the region alternatively? Definitely do webinars prior to Seattle. 1. Update to GAC Jordan: was trying to be clear and concise Peter: turnover with GAC. use leadership team to leverage Bart: GAC has appointed an agenda liaison. Ian Sheldon. AU GAC Jordan: we work closely with him Bart: use him and Sean (his ccnso counterpart) to liaise as well 4. Continue assessing nature of issues (policy, interpretation of policy, implementation of policy, procedural, other) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-s... Bart: you discussed a, b, c, d
resignation
Jordan: suggestion that this is a policy gap. Resignation introduces a new situation. We have not studied whether there is anything substantive to be done. Study group process. Was there anything fundamental, where the community wants to add constraints on iana? Peter: perception rather than policy. Resignation was instantly for .lb. Any planned resignation would be covered by policy. Responsibility of the contingency is a matter for the LIC. what if the manager does not inform the community? Only iana? The approach this time was reasonable. And then review the incident. Try not to capture in policy every detail that could happen Irina: at first glance, this seems to be one of the easiest topics. Good solution for this case. Not very complicated. Agree with Jordan that there potentially might be constraints on iana. Settled through a pdp. But first we need more study on the topic. Pablo: agree Stephen: iana followed the right steps. Similar to what happened in new gTLD word Selina: iana did not operate the domain. Did not provide any services. Individuals in lebanon continued operating the TLD, while they prepared the transfer documentation. Iana was not operating. Pablo: put the path in writing Bart: case, how it was resolved, and the view of the WG? Pablo: yes. Also try to develop a policy for it. Or sth else. Iana did the right thing. Selina: there is documentation. Jordan: Here is the letter about .lb that IANA sent to ccNSO in 2023 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/davies-to-reynoso-13jul... Here’s the transfer report: https://www.iana.org/reports/2024/lb-report-20240121.html Bart: gap, which requires further study. Determine then how to address it.
minimum level of involvement
No comments
disaster recovery
Not a gap in the policy. Maybe develop guidance to iana. Best practices to ccTLDS. Tech WG and TLD-OPS are looking into it Peter: not sure I understand the problem. The responsibility again of the Local Internet Community (LIC). study to understand the extent of the perceived problem. Worried about ccNSO stepping into the ccTLD’s territory. Bart: noted. See topics flagged in Kim’s paper. Most of them fairly operational Pablo: guidance. See what tld-ops is doing.
request confidentiality
Jordan: setting out the current approach and making it more visible to the community. One outcome could be a report on the issues. After Seattle. Irina: if we decide we need to change this. How? First understand if change is needed.
lack of clear statement of current policy
Bart: see also work by ad hoc group. Lots of implications. Rewrite RFC1591 Jordan: not a pressing issue. Not now, not prior to icann82 Bart: leadership and secretariat will clean up the doc and resend again prior to next meeting 5. Next meetings 10 December - noon UTC 21 or 28 January 2025 - 20 UTC Bart: preference to restart on 28 jan. meeting then every 2 weeks. Group agrees. 6. AOB none 7. Adjourn 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