NOTES | PGA | 10 December 2024 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Maria. 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<https://community.icann.org/x/doAFEg> Consult the ccNSO SOI Guideline: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-internal-pr... 1. Update workplan https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHfbRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5txg... Bart: First pass analysis bit was completed. introduce consolidation work We penciled in meetings up to ICANN82. also a working group session on saturday or sunday, and a session as part of the ccnso members meeting at ICANN82 28 January 2025, 20 UTC 04 February 2025, 04.00 UTC 18 February 2025, noon UTC 04 March 2025 (if needed), 20 UTC ICANN82 – Working Group meeting & ccNSO Members Meeting session 3. Second and final Continue assessing nature of issues policy, interpretation of policy, implementation of policy, procedural, other https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-s... item D PK: specific cases where this is based on, but they are not quoted here. does not object to study group approach. but how much concrete info do we have. Bart: the info we have was shared by Kim in his discussion around the topic. Jordan: scope would need to be defined very carefully Kim: some of the topics that are sensitive or delicate. some communications are private. happy to provide details in due course. we might need to find a way of approaching it in a more general manner. Bart: from a ccNSO perspective we need to be careful not to go to much into the individual cases. this refers to the list shared by IANA. the issues raised. implicitly: there is information around it. Jordan: this is not going to be a fishing expedition. 4. Introducing Prioritization – Proposed method to prioritize the various work items. A - Data accuracy B - Purpose of public records C - Enforcement and/or graduated compliance options Bart: start with a study group. explore the scope of the issue. Bart: any questions regarding A, B and C? None Jordan: not a final decision. If you do a conventional PDP, it often is. But with a study group options are open: a study group could already do a lot of heavy lifting, even if policy is later required. Bart: this is taking the sense of the WG at this stage. this will be presented to community at ICANN82. By ICANN83 the group is expected to report to Council and recommend actions. Bart: deal with A, B and C together? WG agrees. green marks in zoom D - Ensuring eligibility assessment occurs before practical changes E - Local presence F - Resignation Stephen: US department of Commerce is talking with territories. MoU. might supersede. Jordan: not sure. let’s see in Seattle Jordan: ok for now. but let’s see the community discussion. some feedback from the community that a PDP might be required. Irina: i support the SG approach. suggestion: adjust the comments. they are too PDP-focused. Jordan: yes, this is just for the WG. I set aside some time to write something for the community in January. Jordan: not convinced this needs to be a PDP. support to “tone down” this. PK: study group may result in a PDP. Bold: what we agree on. The rest just captures the discussion. Jordan: yes. in bold is what we propose. the paragraph below captures the discussions. Frederica: regarding the study group. how will they work. will there be a call for volunteers? how does the group does it work? how will they inform Council? Jordan: short answer. if we were to establish a study group. ToR would be developed with deadline and expected deliverables, and a call for volunteers to be launched. Bart: will past example in the chat Example: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/wildcardwg.htm Group agrees with the proposed approach G - Minimum level of involvement Bart: heavy handed Jordan: hard to justify Irina: Why do we recommend a study group for the others but not here? Jordan: detailed and specific questions. ccTLDs have the mandate to resolve them. However this topic is of interest to other parts of the community, hence it needs to be a broader group. PK: heavy handed. not clear to all. This might be a formality. We are looking at what was an intuitive understanding of what a ccTLD manager was back then, vs what it is today. definition that appears in a cross-community effort result. FOI was one. But is that really the issue? CCWG seems to be a collection of the different SO/ACs. is that the right environment? some people would not be at the table. some are not in icann. Jordan: CCWG got infused with what happened during the transition. Lots of challenges. Regarding the FOI: it was ccTLDs, and GAC reps. Bart: the FOI, the GAC had to not object to the outcome. They had to be explicit. regarding local presence. flip side of the coin. Jordan: let’s suspend the discussion. there are things to avoid. we might need more research. and also come back to the local presence, at the meeting at the end of January. We cannot dedicate time to it today. Action item: Jordan will express on mailing list the rationale Bart: you can invite others too. the issue is: who signs off on the end result? Jordan: and with a study group? Bart: council Jordan: ok, no consensus needed for a study group. H - Disaster recovery Irina: I would prefer the best practice approach. We are not here to dictate ccTLDs whether they should have an emergency backup operator, or how their plans should look like. we can make suggestions. Jordan: tricky. best practice could help inform ccTLDs. the Study Group could look into IANA’s role. Kim: complex topic. superficially agrees this is a local matter. but different ccTLDs have different levels of sophistication. not all understand what they are doing. what to do when a disaster happens? irrespective of the circumstance. IANA is the one people go to, to fix the problem. pieces of critical infrastructure. saying “we cannot do anything” is not satisfactory to anyone. clarifying the roles would be a good outcome. Jordan: ccnso to help establish what does “good” look like for ccTLDs? the study group looks into iana’s role PK: would iana need a specific policy empowerment to step in, if asked? slightly related to the .lb case. Jordan: the question behind it. fair for the community to develop some expectations. the study group might be nice format. Bart: referring to study groups to date. use of emoji at 2nd level. there are advice practices. not to use the word “best practices”. Irina: i do not see what needs to be studied, other than the expectation of cctld managers Jordan: what are the possibilities? There are different facets. Surface issues in ways that are digestible enough to develop community understanding. Do agree a study group works? few green marks. one slow down mark indicate preference at the moment is for a study group I - Request confidentiality Jordan: right approach. low priority? do you agree this is the right approach? green marks J - Lack of clear statement of current policies Jordan: we did not look into this yet. The actual prioritization of items is expected to start at meeting on 28 January 2025 5. Introducing the Lack of clear statement of current policies Work to date by ad-hoc group * Example 1 – combining the core documents into one doc: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Materials+and+Docu... * Example 2 - ccTLD Policy Consolidation: The management of country code top level domains - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/363922030/2024-04%20-%20Exp... Bart: combining the documents. trying to restate in more accessible language the combined policies. Retirment policy, RFC1591, FOI. Jordan tried to make this more understandable. check if you like the approahc Jordan: all policies in one place? this is how it could like like Bart: the ad hoc group reviewed RFC1591. identified obsolete areas. We also added the FOI in the sections of RFC1591. final bit: includes the retirement policy Jordan: we encourage you to read this. any feedback on existing overview document? Bart: eberhard did. we will circulate a note to the list again, with the announcement on the website. 6. Next meetings 28 January 2025, 20 UTC 04 February 2025, 04.00 UTC 18 February 2025, noon UTC 04 March 2025 (if needed), 20 UTC ICANN82 – Working Group meeting & ccNSO Members Meeting session 6. AOB skipped in interest of time. please send email to list, if needed. 7. Adjourn Thank you all! See you in 2025 Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG