NOTES | PGA | Tuesday, 18 February 2025 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Jordan Carter, PGA WG chair He gives to floor to Maria, Vice Chair 2. Admin matters a. SOI updates 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... Any updates? Jordan: i will stop being a director for the .asia organisation. Therefor change of affiliation b. Update Outline: PGA Working Group: Outline Workplan<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KLwT8OSYHnHf-bRHfZuAW15cKIx6vthA_W36g5tx...> Red: changes 2-reading process. Look at survey results. Look at the additional gaps in the policy consolidation. Final reading of the recommendations at our meeting on the 4th. 3. Prioritisation framework: Agree recommendations to the community - First Reading: See PDF and PGA-WG Working Doc - issues and analysis for WG<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOP7lbO9xfoyz09zn1SPBUpEZU5NLmtcgZeyQD-s...> Survey results shared by Jordan. Q3. rank the options 1 = least impact 6 = most impact Maria: why did you vote the way you did? Bart: 13 responded, 12 answered this question. Iana public records: diverging opinions. 5 consider it high impact, 4 low impact. This is the most diverse. Why did you rank it, the way you did? Chris: i think i ranked it as number 1 Think it is very important, in terms of legitimacy of the RZ database. Important: should be disaster recovery. Depends on what we mean by that. Local presence is not that important. The iana public records are important. Atsushi: the impact. It means the importance. I ranked it as 6, because it is important. But the impact means: if the cctld has a right record, there is no impact. Hence ranked 1. The ccTLD means that your cctld or cctld as a whole? That is vague. That is why there is this divergence. Bart: If you look at the way Chris responded, important from a broader perspective, would you reconsider your response? Atsuhi: more importantly, if the question is “impact on your ccTLD”, i would change the answer. I would not list the iana public records. Need to think Peter: difference between importance and impact. I ranked it as least impactful, based on similar consideration. Collective ccTLD vs individual. Would not impact us. But there is a lot of symbolism. Not necessarily a material impact on the collective TLDs. We could only rank them, and not assign weights. Jordan: we did not think about the criteria well enough. Rated iana public records as most impactful on ccTLDs. But not for our ccTLD. Irina: i changed my score twice. First I did not realise, 6 was the most impactful. I did the other way around. Pablo: disaster recovery low, because i use a backend provider. That is being taken care of. Jordan: If others had the same confusion that Irina had, the whole results here might be invalid Jordan: I did have to read the survey and questions a few times to be sure I was scoring it right - I did think the same thing Peter: How does the score calculate? Local presence got 2.67 with no one ranking 1 or 2? Joke: will check the surveymonkey settings Jordan: good to find out. The common sense does match the answer. Intuitively, the iana public records are a lot of work Q4. Bart: least work involved has score 6. But the previous question was phrased the other way around. Let’s check surveymonkey. The averages do not match Table by Jordan Column 2 is the original iana order. Original 9 items. Iana public records includes 3 items. Bart: only 12 out of 19 members responded to the survey. Jordan: The intention was that we would be giving a 1 to the “best” outcome - most positive impact, or least amount of work I fear I may have made a mistake on the order of the Impact list. But maybe I didn;t. There are some issues regarding the quality of the survey. Bart: which order for the study groups? Irina: since we are not so sure about the survey results, i suggest we follow the iana order. Jordan: agree. Disaster recovery: Might be less of a conflict in terms of capacity for the ccnso. Accuracy, in terms of reputation overall, seems to be important. Peter: our own survey …. I am not sure i trust the results. There is confusion about the ranking order. als o counter-intuitive, without having a good explanation. Where do we have clusters of people putting it in the same spot? That was clear in its impact or work involved. Let’s take that into consideration. We could start with the iana order, starting with the public record. But there are other considerations too. Bart: do disaster recovery and iana public records in parallel? Peter: not sure I understand the “disaster recovery” appetite. Maybe local presence to be dealt with at an earlier point. Bart: max. 2 in parallel Irina: On disaster recovery I'd just do a simple survey: how many ccTLDs have their own Disaster Recovery Plan in place and will NOT need any assistance from IANA? Bart: the order is fluid. Depends on who you ask, and when Bart: do you agree we identity 2 out of 6 items first, to focus on after ICANN82. Irina: what about the other order? Bart: do it later, once finished. Maybe others will be involved. You may have another view, once the work is done. Irina: does it mean that this group will stay in active mode until the first study group has finished? Bart: this group has a limited charter. This group will close by Prague, with a report to council, and community consultation. Once the study groups have closed, the council will order to revisit this. Part of the ccnso workplan. Irian: shall we ask the council how the second prioritisation should work? Bart: you cannot do 6 at once. You identified 6 items, and how to address them. Do 2 items first, and then re-evaluate once the work of the first 2 items has closed. Irina: i thought we needed to give more guidance. The order for all 6 items should be advised. What once all 6 studies are done, what happens then? Pdp? Lots of unclarity. Bart: a study group will come up with recommendations. You cannot anticipate the results of these recommendations. Bart: any questions on the proposal? None Bart: who is in favour to identify 2 items first, and to suggest this to council and community. And address the order of the future approach once concluded. Green marks. No red ones Bart: We will revisit in 2 weeks. Bart: “iana public records” and “disaster recovery” as the first 2 items for a study group Any questions or comments? Atsushi: in favour to do iana public records first. However, disaster recovery needs further consideration first. Are the survey results correct? Not sure we have the same understanding. The beginning of the WG is the asking of the iana. But iana did not rank disaster recovery highly. Why do this WG? I am against deciding at this moment to do disaster recovery. Would rather do: local presence, or eligibility before changes Peter: I would like to better understand why (some) people think that DR needs “other” skills. This would not be about DR processes, but the potential role of IANA Bart: Jordan’s remark. Jordan: It was me - if it should be contextualised in the bigger picture of what disaster recovery means - it’s not a strong opinion on my part Might include people working in different parts of our registries. You still need policy skills. Bart: we have an initial ranking. First “iana public records”. Still a debate about DR. Suggestion: on the next call, revisit the ranking, and take into account the outcome of today. Identify the second item at the next meeting. Question for the group: do you want to re-do the survey? Might be more useful to go back to the original idea. What was included in the presentations from iana. What do these various items entail? Conclusion: iana public records as first. Them eligibility or DR as second. To be determined. Maria: if people are confident about the survey, no need to re-do Jordan: open to do the survey again. But this was too confusing. Ask secretariat to look at the scoring again. My suggestion is to not do the scoring offline, but rather in the room in Seattle or online. Bart: the discussion today was far more useful than the survey scoring itself. Jordan: It is all information about our perspectives - to be discussed and considered A survey can’t decide for us. 4. Introduce the identification of additional gaps: Does anyone have any? None Bart: let’s ask the same question at the next meeting. Are there additional gaps, other than the ones identified by iana? Please use the email list to respond 5. Introduce the consolidated policies: reminder a. Version 1: Consolidated overview RFC1591, FoI and Retirement policy:Background Materials and Document Library - ccNSO Workspace - Global Site<https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Materials+and+Docu...> (example page 5) b. Version 2: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Background+Materials+and+Docu... Bart: this is an open item. This was one of the open issues, at the start of this work. An item on iana’s list, the consolidated policy. The ad hoc grop came up with 2 examples: * Rigid combo of RFC1591, FOI, and retitrement policies * Restructure the existing docs. Version 1, page 5 The light grey areas were considered obsolete. We added the FOI. interpretation - introduction section. This is the basis of RFC1591 as interpreted by FOI in use. Version 2 Suggested example approach Joke: wiki down. Cannot display 6. AOB none 7. Closure and next meeting PGA meeting: 4 March 2025 (20.00 UTC) Working session Seattle: Sat, 8 March 2025 (09:00-10:00 local | UTC -8) Members update and consultation: Tue, 11 March 2025 (17:30-18:30 local | UTC -7) Update to the GAC: Wed, 12 March 2025 (10:30-12:00 local | UTC -7) Maria: why -8 UTC and -7 UTC? Joke: seattle changes time during ICANN82 Thank you all. Bye Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN82: https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG