NOTES | PGA WG | 4 Feb 2025 (4 UTC) ACTION ITEM #1 * Staff to circulate this week an excel sheet to the PGA WG mailing list with instructions regarding the ranking * PGA WG members to individually rank the items in the sheet, as per the instructions 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Bart: to review language to support the study group. Add to doc 2. Admin matters a. SoI b. Update Outline ( See Outline: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5tx... 3. Second reading of the decision about local presence Jordan: see PGA google doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-s... Bart: level of local involvement. Approach for the issue Edits by Jordan Any questions regarding the additional language? None Do you agree? Only green marks Jordan: bottom of the doc, contains the groupings we agreed Happy to report back to Council. If the ccnso decides to progress with any of the study groups we proposed, some additional steps need to be taken. E.g. Terms of Reference to be created etc This doc closes. 4. Priority setting: what is considered important for ccTLD. Identifying criteria to set priority Jordan: draft prioritisation framework https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PqmsB64yW5I93Mb5JMrJIlSldIEfUH2TxoS4rbn... Proposed working method by Jordan. Individual thinking offline. Supported by several group members. DASC library uses a similar approach. Secretariat can assist. Peter: suggestion Jordan: 3 sections * Iana priorities. Already in order of priority * Impact on ccTLDs. Issue that would be helpful to resolve. High vs low score. * Amount of work involved Scoring process. Each of us to make 2 decisions. Are there other factors to take into account? Peter: makes sense. Iana list already prioritized. Importance over (perceived) urgency. Some questions are potentially politically delicate. No particular item in mind. Jordan: score political sensitivities. Alternatively, once the initial score is done, add it to the discussion. Thirdly, people could also mark those items with political sensitivity as such Bart: is the idea of the prioritisation the idea not to run study groups in parallel? PGA WG could advise it. You could also advice to council to revisit the order after 2 work items. Will take at least 3 years. so, picking the 2 most important items, and order them Jordan: for now just assessing the issues on their merits. Irina: agree. Impact on ccTLDs needs more clarification. Impact on image? Cctlds will need to immediate work? Or is it something that comes on the table when a ccTLD wants to make changes to the iana DB? To avoid we do not score it consistently? Jordan: what should a positive impact be? Irina: i read as an impact on the image of ccTLDs Jordan: creating work for ccTLDs might be seen as negative, but the improved reputation would be a positive impact. Positive impact on the reputation of ccTLDs, individually or collectively Irina: correct Atsushi: agree Jordan: are we happy with the process? With the factors listed? Once done, we will do a political sensitivity check Do you agree with the individual scores? Green marks Jordan: are you happy with the factors? Green marks Bart: method of consolidation? Jordan: adding up. Excel. Claudia is aware. DASC process Bart: iana list Peter: should we judge the iana priority as well? Medium aggregate could come from: medium from everybody, but low for some, and high for others. But we can do the ranking first, and then discuss Jordan: one sheet with added up numbers, another sheet with the anonymised votes. Claudia: ok Claudia will send out the sheet to the group this week. Deadline next week. Allow for time to aggregate the results 5. Next meetings: 4 February 04.00 UTC, 18 February 20.00 UTC 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 ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG