[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM | 5 October 2022 (19 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3-RM | 5 October 2022 (19 UTC)



  1.  Welcome and roll call


Started 5 min. Past the hour; waiting to be quorate

Bart took over the welcome while Stephen fixed his connection issues



2.                   Administrative items if any


a. Process and next steps going forward


Bart: You may recall from the ret-WG, the report that came out of that group was called the initial report. This report would be the initial report from the issue report. Public comment on the initial report. To be finalised, to a final report, based on feedback. For submission to council, and ccnso decision-making. Same as for the ret. policy. That would save one public comment. Looking at the duration of the public comment, after approving the initial report: 50 days, starting end october until 1st or 2nd week in October. Bart as issue manager and major staff person, would do the staff report.  Final report would then be submitted to council

Irina: end october?

Bart: yes, depending on your feedback to the document circulated by Bernie. 2nd reading on 19 October. 1 or 2 weeks to prep for the public comment.


Council met at ICANN75. One of the items on their agenda was the closure of the retirement WG. shortly we will send an email regarding the adoption of the policy, then close the list and archive it.. How to structure implementation? Council needs to think through how to involve the ccTLD community in that implementation work, to provide guidance and feedback.


Irina: SOPC is preparing for public comments.

Clarifying question to planning team: include implementation of the policy in the iana activities report for this year?

Bart: not an issue from a budget, resource point of view.

Please raise this also during the call in 2 weeks time, when IANA staff attends

Irina: by then we should also have feedback from the planning team


Stephen refers to adoption by Board of proposed retirement policy. Hopes the board has procedures in place to handle policy recommendations, and hope future processes will be quicker.



3.                   Review ICANN75 RM sessions


Stephen: updates to community and GAC were well received.

How did the presentation sessions go?

No feedback from the WG



4.                   First reading Initial Report


Kim: Doc can also be found on the wiki if you want to follow along:  https://community.icann.org/x/_QPVD


Bernie: doc which can go out for public comment

Apart from the introduction, there is nothing new. Made digestible for the average reader.


>>> section 1


Text in yellow is new. It is an introduction.

Questions included in the charter. Section added with responses to those questions.

Section 1.3: reading guide

Bart: also includes reference to letter from Council. There is an added recommendation. In icann legal’s letter to the WG, there was question on whether the retirement was included in the exceptions, or whether retirement will be eligible to an IRP. Response that all major processes are exempt

Joke: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02aug22-en.htm

Stephen: please elaborate

Bernie: goes back to transition, when we said that redelegations do not go through review processes. But we did not include retirement. Hence the question. This probably caused delay in the approval of the retirement policy.

Bart: typo. “Initial”. Editorial change


>>> Section 3

  *   Note from Bart
  *   Link from this PDP to other policy development efforts
  *   Reference to annex A. (original detailed process)


Irina: presentation to GAC, and the question we received. Following further discussion by the WG, does it make sense to add a clarification that the policy does not provide basis for review by local governments?

Bart: sensibilities. there is an additional layer included. If there is a question or comment received, we can refer to the relevant text and explain, but it is not part of the policy.


Irina: where is the older decision regarding exemption coming from

See response in chat by Joke

Bernie: delegations and redelegations part of transition. Request from council. It was understood by the ccNSO it should cover everything. ICANN legal was unclear about the retirement.

Irina: why was the decision taken at ICANN53?

Bart: when we started the discussion on binding, staff provided an overview of the arguments from the transition, which ended up in current language from the bylaws

Perhaps we should add a link to the document? See what happened in 2014-2016 era. At that time the FOI was adopted as well. That is why the bylaws say “redelegation”, a term overtaken by the board’s adoption of the FOI.  The document will include the reason why.



5.                   AOB


None



6.                   Next meetings


19 October | 1900 UTC: 2nd reading

2 November | 1900 UTC - TBD

16 November (time TBD – end of Daylight Saving) - TBD


Bart: no need to meet during the public comment period.

Bart: please check the circulated document, and send comments online. Text needs to be adjusted (editorials). By 19 Oct: formal temperature of the room, to see whether people agree with the proposals to be sent out for public comments.



7.                   Closure


Thank you all. Bye.



Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20221005/1c9276a0/attachment-0001.html>