[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 | 13 February 2024 (13:00 UTC)

Tue Feb 13 14:40:57 UTC 2024

NOTES | ccPDP4 | 13 February 2024 (13:00 UTC)

  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Kenny
Apologies from Patricio

2.            Admin matters

a.            Action Items

Ariel and Irina followed up on their action items. Bart as well, shortly before the start of the meeting

b.    SoI any updates from members?

Anil: due to personal issues, he leaves the WG. Looking forward to meet everyone in San Juan.  Thanks to all members and staff for the support since 2020.
Kenny: thank you. You are welcome to continue as an observer.
Bart: thank you for your support. Staff appreciated working with you and Kenny. Thanks also for serving as liaison to GNSO PDP. Thanks again.

3.            GNSO EPDP request to provide input on Draft Recommendation on creation of cross- community group to update IDN Implementation Guidelines

Thanks to Ariel for circulating the document.
Ariel: what i said last week covers it. Following up on what Kenny said: creation of a CCWG. not per se cross community WG (term from IANA stewardship transition). Existing mechanism that existed for more than 20 years. Community experts from ccnso and gnso space and later on alac as well. Existing mechanism, not a new one. This recommendation formalises it, with the requirement of a charter.
Bart: cross community group, not a cross community working group. A group of members from a cross-section of the community. Difference between the process and the charter?
Ariel: similar to what you subscribed. It is just the process. How is the WG established. Different from the charter. General language instead of being prescriptive. Do not make it too stringent.
Bart: first the process, once that is approved, then the group itself establishes and designs a formal charter.
Ariel: think that is the sequence. Group was not clear. Process itself is straightforward and does not require many details. Charter is important. Relevant icann board wg is responsible for establishing.
Bart: councils and board approve something which needs to be detailed later on, including membership etc.
I have seen some WG where there is an expectation that members go back to their community and inform and consult them. That is overstretching the role from a ccnso point of view.
Sarmad: formation?
Ariel: not set in stone. Each group confirms who the members will be. Names will come after. Maybe liaisons too? The charter explains the structure, roles and responsibilities and the expected expertise.
Bart: first the purpose and scope. Then the membership.
Ariel: GNSO experience. Never saw it a problem. GNSO council works as such. First charter, and then call for volunteers.
Bart: this time the WG already has members. Someone else establishes the charter. This is confusing.
Ariel: more info needed about what is confusing.
Bart: something i noticed. WG must establish a formal charter. The WG is created, and then it will define a charter. First action they need to do.
The WG will always include people
Ariel: people can be filled after establishing the WG
Bart: a WG is not an empty thing. Charter to be approved by whom?
Ariel: 14.4
Bart: that is before a call for volunteers. Ok.
Ariel: march for public comment.
Bart: on council agenda this Thursday. Based on the sense by this group. Input from ccnso council, as heads up before going into public comments
Ariel: yes. If the council has significant concerns, they can be addressed before publication.
Bart: council will at least have no objection, without direct support. I will inform you Friday about the outcome of the discussion. Depends on the sense of this WG
Ariel: that works
Hadia: what if Council does not agree to be part of the group?
Bart: question for the EPDP group. We cannot address this.
If there is a no, there will be arguments. Speculating. No major concerns expressed to date.
Sarmad: process in the past. Informing SO/ACs that group is being formed and that we welcome nominees. Ifn WG developed the scope, and then published the scope of work for public comment.
Peter: I understand that bootstrapping is necessary, but I wonder whether the skills needed for chartering and the skills needed for executing the task are sufficiently aligned. Apart from the self referential nau
… nature and the formalities, there might be reasons to decouple the two stages
Bart: any major objections to the structure?
Ccnso will have an approval role at the start and end of the process.
Ariel: up to board to approve
Bart: other directly related outputs?
Ariel: phrase needs to be cleaned up. Main item is the process. What the WG needs to do. The process for establishing the WG needs to be approved. But not the actual output needs to be approved by council. Up to the board
Bart: could be structured as an intermediate step. Clarification needed what are directly related outputs
Irina: 14.1 speaks about the process. Unified process, which can be applied to create any WG related to IDN guidelines in the future. When there is a need to create a group, to work on a guideline. Who makes the decision? And how? Will it be described in the part of the process?
Ariel: good question. Part of the elements that need to be clarified. In the past, icann board would consult with staff and community in terms of when/why IDN implementation guideline needs to be updated.
Irina: not decided yet. Still to be developed. Could be icann board only, or board and councils deciding that it is time to create a new WG
Ariel: i think you are right. Not formally documented to date. Flexible in terms of implementation.
Bart: any objections to involve Council in this process?
Peter: i am not in a position to make this or that recommendation to council. I have not understood all details. I need a summary to get to these questions. The discussion in chat shows there is unclarity who is responsible for what. No hard objection, but … caution
Jiankang: what is the main aim of the IDN Board WG
Ariel: in the recommendation, the board has provided oversight. Name is different. Subset of the board has been performing oversight the development of the IDN guidelines. They will continue to have the oversight role. What if the group does not exist in future? Still part of the board. Board to establish the formal charter.
Ariel: or its relevant successor
In the relevant topic area. Suggestion came from one of the board liaisons to the EPDP team
Sarmad: the board idn UA WG initially started with a variant issues project. There was an early version of such a group too. Broader question from Jiankang. Oversight role of the work done by ICANN org for IDN and UA. they are part of the board technical committee. Part of the board itself.
Bart: many WGs mentioned here. To be clarified. Would remove confusion if that was cleaned up.
Do you see any major issues regarding the proposed charter from a ccNSO perspective? If no, green marks. If yes, red marks
Hadia: clarification. Is the icann Board IDN UA WG that develops the charter also be part of the WG? Or only oversight?
Bart: let’s raise as part of the public comment

4.            First reading remainder Part A, B and C

Hadia: what happens first? Order of the processes?
Bart: matter of implementation. Under the FTP, the technical panel and the first evaluation panel are one and the same panel. There is no sequencing, they do it at the same time. For the logic of the process, they are separated.
Peter: case by case thing. Just considered invalid for this process.
Bart: friendly amendment
Peter: yes.
Bart: 7.6.4.3.
Do you support? Green marks
Irina: prefer to double-check
Bart: ok, will do next week. Not literally, but covered
Hadia: covered in 14.5.

7.9 Transitional arrangement - If an IDNccTLD string request that was submitted under the Fast Track Process, is still in the Fast Track Technical and Similarity Validation process, the request will be validated under the Fast Track Process, including but not limited to the Fast Track Technical and Similarity review process.
Irina: not sure yet if it addresses my concern. Will need to read it again, by next meeting
Bart: ok, we will revisit.

Bart: do not force icann, nor rhe requestor, to switch processes, halfway through
Hadia: no need to add anything.

Bart: is 7.9 covered under 14.2? To be checked

Do you support to include annex A, B, C?

Annex F: few changes. Will update by the next meeting.

Irina: variant small team. Does this definition make sense?
Bart: 5.2.1. Group to review and to comment online
Michael: no immediate feedback

Bart: next week second final reading. On Thursday, the doc will be updated and circulated. Next meeting will be on seeking your approval. We prefer to do so during the meeting, and not online.

5.            Second  reading Part O and section 1-6 Part A

6.            Next meetings: 20 February 13.00 UTC

7.            AOB

Tentative timeline ccPDP4 decision-making process. Heads up prior to the Council meeting this Thursday.

Hadia: was rereading the definition of IDN ccTLD variants. We have variants that are blocked. But the RZLGR determine the variants, and determines whether they are allocatable or blocked. Why do we limit the definition?
Bart: we did not. This is a proposal. Hence the highlight.
Will circulate this again, and will ask Sarmad and Pitinan to comment on it during the upcoming week and have a final discussion about it during the meeting next week. Hadia to raise her comment on mailing list.

ccNSO members vote only on the policy itself. The advice will go a separate route. At least 50% of the emissaries need to cast a vote to meet quorum

Jiankang: same concerns. The current definition of variants seems not perfect
Bart: ok! Please comment on the mailing list, and hope we can reach agreement by next week

8.            Closure

Kenny: invites all to reflect on the issues mentioned by Irina. See you next week.

Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>

ICANN79 links to bookmark now

  *   ccNSO Schedule
https://community.icann.org/x/MIEJEQ

  *   ccNSO Session Highlights
https://community.icann.org/x/jIEvEQ

  *   Tech Day
https://community.icann.org/x/T4EJEQ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20240213/f5a5d7b1/attachment-0001.html>