NOTES ICANN82 | Policy Gap Analysis Working Group (PGA WG) Saturday, 8 March 2025 09:00-10:00 local | 17:00-18:00 UTC Room 302 | https://sched.co/1vpY4 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Carter Vice chair joined online 2. Admin matters a. SOI updates Any updates? None 3. Second reading - prioritization of issues IANA list: rough order priority as per IANA Reflected on how to prioritise. Looking at the importance of the issues to ccTLDs. Also factored in the volume of work. Ordering mechanism via a survey was not successful due to language, and a few other issues. Assuming the council, after members feedback from members at the meeting, gives us the ok to proceed. Proposed priority: iana public records, followed by disaster recovery. There are no objective factors that determine the priorities. Careful scope required by chartering study groups Irina: I feel comfortable with the suggested priority. Not undertake more than 2 items at the same time. Jordan: agree. Not more than 2 study groups at the same time. No priority for the remaining issues Peter: remaining issues, no priority yet. Jordan: indeed. Some work needs to be done, but not clear yet when and what order Bart: the WG should advise council Nick: no comment regarding prioritisation. Do you know how long this will go on for? Pdp’s are multi-year processes. Is this more agile? Not 5 to 10 year processes. If there are 12 issues, which decade will we finish? Jordan: constraint will be the iana team, ccnso secretariat and the volunteers. Intention is to finish the study group within the year. Study group is lighter than the PDP process. Bart: recent examples. Last Study Group was the emoji Study Group. All are aware about the pressure on capacity. Pace of one meeting every month. Could be increased. As a result of the council discussions, turn this into bite-sized chipmunks. What PGA is doing is a good example/ Jordan: outcomes are an analysis around the issues, and a recommendation on the next steps. Nick: assume the SG would have delivered their recommendations by ICANN85. What are the steps after that? Does it need to go to the icann board? Does it need to go through implementation? Jordan: hard to tell. If the conclusion is a set of recommendations for iana, or a PDP … it depends. Not up to us to recommend the work method of the follow-up items. Fan of a closed-out date. Abdalmonem: disaster recovery. One of the cctlds might be down. Reassign to new organisation. Reassignation is one of the arms or methods used by disaster recovery Jordan: iana root zone database. Not about the zonefile Jordan: confirm the 2 issues as top priorities in the order presented. We will test this with the community further on in this icann meeting Jordan: whether DNS abuse is a topic. See agenda item 4. Question by Jofan in the chat. We have not considered this to be a policy gap. Policies on how iana deals with cctld delegation. Anything that affects registration or use of domains is out of scope for this group. Dns abuse is out of scope. Anyone disagree? No 4. Additional gaps Bart: stephen raised the point during the last call. No Review Mechanism in place, but retirement is in place. Chris: there is a RM, the IRP. it is not a gap. There is just not the RM developed by us Peter: agree with Peter. It is an implementation gap. It is not about the connection between the 2 policies. The policy has not yet been approved by the board. Needs to be dealt with at a different venue Jordan: stephen is not attending Abdalmonem: email address of a representative. Admin-c. Unique for all ? admin@ and then cctld manager website. Would make things easier. Avoid needing to go through iana DB. Kim D: thanks for raising the issue. The other topic we consider is: what is the purpose of the public record? Hope to have clarity on why we have a public record. Jordan: the iana public record item is a consolidation of 3 issues. * Why do you collect info and publish it? * Accuracy of the data in the records? * Compliance regime that is in place around those Jordan: if required, Stephen could clarify his suggestion at the next meeting. Bart: what will be the next steps of this group? This group is mandated until ICANN82. My advise would be to close the topic, seen the feedback from the group. Otherwise the process will be prolonged again, and this needs to be moved to council. 5. PGA at ICANN82 a. What to present to the community? Tuesday, 11 March | 16:30-17:30 local (UTC -7) Work to date Seek community comments regarding the priorities and next steps b. What to present to the GAC? Wednesday, 12 March | 10:30-12:00 local (UTC -7) We want GAC to be aware. Work since ICANN 81, and the 2 proposed priorities. Bart: 9 november. Advise council to maintain. Jordan; yes. Overview of all policies, procedures, guidance etc. 6. Consolidated Overview Applicable policies Jordan: this is about work the group looked at. Is the fragmentation an issue? Not just guidance on where to find it, but have literally one single doc. Bart and I started to do sth Bart: do you want to continue on that item? Was part of your mandate, but this group has not discussed yet. Open item Jordan: is this a piece of work we should continue with? Administrative process. Restatement of the current policy. Not a PDP to re-open the policy. Irina: we should not. Sounds like a nice thing to have in one place. I see 2 risks: * Hard to avoid interpretation * Job that you and Bart attempted, was good, but demonstrated that we will have 50 to 100 pages doc. Hard to read. Suggestion to stop there. Chris: i agree. The FOI tries to provide an interpretation. If the outcomes of the SG is enough incentive to do so, then start. But not now Peter: i understand the motivation. Administrative task. If in doubt, the historic documents would prevail. Not much of a gain. Ensure people understand the historic context. But do not touch the documents. Leave it as it is. There is a lot of precedence in these docs. Jordan: agree. The group seems to agree not to pursue that item. No need for a second reading. 7. Next steps Jordan: work plan? Bart: we covered it all. Consultation with community here at icann 81, and then inform council. Recommend the actions. And then close the WG. Jordan: i would like one more meeting. Retrospective on the process. Should this group review the draft of ToR for the study groups? Bart: council can do that. 2-page recommendation. Including proper scoping of ToR. I advise 2 meetings: use the first meeting to run through the draft report prepared by leadership and council. And then have a second reading. Jordan: ccNSO WG chartered in July, started in August, and wrap-up in April Irina: reminder to review feedback from ccnso members meeting. Jordan: also discuss process to report additional gaps, if any 8. AOB none 9. Closure Thank you all. Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://bit.ly/4h4E8Ot