[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN WG | 22 September 2020 (12:00 UTC).

[Joke Braeken]

Hello All,

Please find included below some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP4 Working Group Meeting.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken



  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Bart Boswinkel.
Second ccPDP4 meeting.
Anybody that wants to comment on the proposed agenda? None

Apologies: Jeff Bedser, Maarten Simon, Yudho Giri Sucahyo, Kristina Hakobyan. Patrik Faltstrom (late)
All calls are recorded; recording will be posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/cgDQC).

2.                  Brief intro of people who were not on the meeting call #1

Hadia: joined after the tour de table during call #1. Introduces herself to the other participants in today’s meeting.
This agenda item will be repeated during the next meeting.

3.                  Action items, if any

Action items:

  *   Circulate presentation and ToE (completed)
  *   Chair and vice-chair nominations. See item number 4 on today’s agenda

4.                  Chair and vice chair nominations

4 candidates: 2 accepted their nominations, 2 did not.
Alireza and Peter have not (yet) accepted their nominations.
Kenny was nominated, other one was Anil. Chair needs to be nominated and seconded by a person related to a ccTLD manager. Clear in case of Kenny. Ajay is not related to a ccTLD manager

Suggestion by Bart: Kenny to become chair and Anil Vice-Chair.
Be aware this takes 2 to 4 hours per week.
Kenny is pleased to take on the role of the Chair of the WG. time commitment is known, and he is available to participate.
Anil is available to accept the position of Vice-Chair, and happy to work together with Kenny.

Next step: Council will need to approve the appointment of Kenny as Chair and Anil as Vice-Chair of the ccPDP4 WG. We will keep all informed of the process. Leadership team will be invited to prep meetings ahead of every Working Group meeting.

5.                  Introducing Rules of Engagement (RoE) document

Document prepared by staff, as a refinement of the decision-making process as defined in the Charter.
This will be a first reading of the RoE. During the next meeting, there will be a second reading. If there are comments, they will be added to a red-lined version. Only after the second reading, the document will be adopted.
The document was already circulated ahead of the first meeting.
Any comments on the structure of the meeting? None

Line-per-line review regarding the contents of the RoE. Comments:

Line 5-12.
Omer: format of the meeting report? Should this be specified in the document?
Bart: staff will circulate documents in pdf and word typically, occasionally excel sheets.
Omer: ensure that all in the WG is aware of what we are using. It might be that for instance your device does not support the format.
Bart: we are flexible. We could add in a footnote that typically we use Word and PDF. What you see displayed in zoom is typically pdf.

Line 33-44
Peter: “participants” not further specified?
Bart: all participating in the meeting. Including members and the participants.
Continuity is as relevant as participating from members.
Oksana: will participants vote for chairs and vice chairs?
Bart: no, this is limited to members, as stipulated in the Charter.

The RoE should be adopted by the full WG membership. Second reading during the next meeting.

Omer: question regarding the need to report to the GAC. Is this something Omer should do, or the Chair of the WG?
Bart: Chair, Vice-Chair and staff will do a regular update during ICANN meetings. Experience has shown that a regular update by participants on progress to their respective SO/ACs,  is useful and appreciated. Staff is here to assist. Chair and Vice-chair are there to provide an update during ICANN meetings, and regularly to the ccNSO Council.

Bart: extract from WG charter. Is already adopted by ccNSO Council. Please carefully review.
Participants are not expected to represent their respective SO/ACs. Participants do not need to consult on recommendations for instance. When participants speak, they speak in their own capacity. If you hear feedback from your SO/ACs, please convey this to the group. The final outcome of the work by this group is subject to public consultation.

Recap:

  *   Include footnote with format of documents
  *   This was the first reading. Next meeting we will have a second reading, at a higher pace than today.

Action item #1
Staff to update the RoE based on the ccPDP4 WG discussion on 22 September

6.                  Overview of work items as included in Issue Report, if time permits

Table of contents
Relation between this policy development process and the ccPDP2. The intermediate steps are the findings of the preliminary review team.

The situation evolved and there were various elements not included in ccPDP2. The preliminary review team looked at ccPDP2, and they came up with recommendations for changes. They took the Board Report from ccPDP2 as the basic text, and added per chapter a table. Per table they included a reference to a section in the document, brief description, common rationale for the inclusion of the topic in the table/list and the proposed next steps (overtaken by time. Advisory on how to resolve the issue itself).

Table 1:
inserted comments from the preliminary review team. Some of the basis principles and the common rationale. Potentially to be expanded. WG starts addressing these different comments to either amend directly in the text, or include as an intermediate step the results of the discussion in an extended table. Thus we can update the ccPDP2 document.

Next meeting: review the principles and check whether your proposals meet the criteria.

Any comments regarding the suggested method? No
To be reconfirmed during the next meeting. First and second reading, before seeking consensus.

Section J. placeholder. The WG needs to come up with a recommendation on IDN variants. If you look at the references in the issue report there is a reference to the board resolution. And to the proposed way of dealing with it. Does the group think changes are needed? Are additions required? This PDP only deals with top level domains, and not second level domains. Second levels are out of scope of a ccPDP.

Action Item #2
All ccPDP4 WG members and participants are  required to go through the different sections of the Issue Report, ahead of the next meeting

Important to note: The ccPDP4 policy proposal will not be about delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement process. This policy is only around the selection and deselection of IDN ccTLD strings.

Inclusion of IDN ccTLD managers in the ccNSO. During the next meeting, staff will delta this part of the Board Report. Reason for doing so? Dealt with separately. ccNSO requested a bylaw change, which awaits further steps by the ICANN Board of Directors. The ccPDP4 WG does not need to address this any longer. Taking out the section will improve readability.

Action item #3
Staff will circulate the Issue Report (some sections will be removed), as a starting point for the WG discussions, ahead of the next meeting.

7.                  Next meeting

In 2 weeks. At the same time

8.                  AOB

9.                  Closure



Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20200922/fab57228/attachment-0001.html>