[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 1 Feb. 2023 (19:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 1 Feb. 2023 (19:00 UTC)




  1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake
Today we will take another look at the policy proposal, following closure of the public comments, and the staff report being available. Brief review of the changes since our last call. This will not be our last meeting

Today:

  *   Proposed policy doc overview by Bernie
  *   Bart to give refined update on next steps and the timeline for completion


2.            Public Comment submissions


1.    DRAFT: final report (attached)

2. Policy objective
Bart: addition, since there was a lot of uncertainty on the impact on retirement and delegation etc when we presented this to the community previously. We made it clear that this policy will not change any of the current processes, procedures, and criteria. To be mentioned, to avoid future discussions.
Eberhard: start with this in section 2
Bart: ok. Strengthens the message
Do you agree that this is included? Participants use green marks in Zoom (i.e. are in support)

Bernie: next part marked in yellow
Eberhard: goes under line of the applicants
Bernie: also applies to ccTLD managers. They cannot ask for review for a cctld they do not manage
Eberhard: sure.
Peter: then the text is ambiguous. Because plural

Eberhard: “require the need”. Is that correct english?
Bernie: will double check the grammar
Bart: “require modification of”. Or: “need to modify”

Bernie: Annex D
Removing header for annex D
Bart: capture terms like CCRM in a glossary. They are defined. But then they are all in one place. See also the more detailed process description. To avoid that people need to go back and forward when they read it
Stephen: adding text to Annex D requires two more reads?
Bart: yes. But we do not invent new terminology
Eberhard: Terminology is important. We should be careful what we write
Bernie: should we populate annex D or not?
Eberhard: rather not
Peter: fine with a glossary. But I do not want a list of definitions. It is an annex, and can be normative. Can be helpful in light of Bart’s remarks
Bernie: Annex D will become a glossary. We will extract the terms from the doc and add them there
Bart: do you support?
Green marks in Zoom. one red mark
Eberhard: don't think we need one. If we do have one, we need to be careful
Bernie: ok. Will prepare something by the next meeting


2.            Staff summary report (Annex E)

Bernie: standard form for a report on community comments
Eberhard: sentence “the submission will not be considered” should be removed. Simply say it was out of scope
Bernie: any objections? None

Eberhard: add “sic” in italics. So everyone knows this is a typo


3.            Next steps in process

Bart: steps by WG. finalise report: one or two more readings. Depends on how the glossary is going. Suggestion to have another meeting on 15 Feb and 22 Feb. For the full WG to adopt the final report as a whole. Ensure that all members have a chance to read it.
Next step is for the Council. Council will meet on 16 March. Council would then be in a position to adopt the final report. Knowing that there is a meeting on the 16th by Council, Stephen to inform council that this is forthcoming, and that they may expect to adopt the report in Cancun. The most critical part of the process will be the members' vote. Hence the focus on Cancun. There is a quorum rule. 50% of the members need to vote (87 votes needed. 1 more than last time). The idea is to start outreach and engage the community during the Cancun meeting, to alert them this is forthcoming. There will also be a webinar. A bit overkill, but we need to ensure the vote is completed by the 1st round. If we do not meet the requirements for the 1st round, you need to wait x days, and then you end up in the holiday season in the northern hemisphere. Focus on April-early may voting. 18 April, to avoid overlap with cancun traveling and Easter holidays. After 9 May, certain steps need to be taken. Including creating a Board report, with the outcome of the members' vote. Board report needs to be posted, the council needs to approve it. Suggestion for Council to approve the Board report by ICANN77 in Washington. Could also be done earlier via email vote, but you do not save much time. ICANN77 has nice momentum.
Before the Board considers the policy, they request the GAC for an opinion, and a public comment of at least 40 days. When the Board will discuss this, is beyond the scope of this WG. The retirement WG was formally closed when the Board adopted the recommended policy. Suggestion is to keep the ccPDP3-RM WG open. In case a supplemental recommendation is needed, it would be good that this WG is still around to inform potential changes to the policy. See annex B, section 15. There is a mechanism for supplemental recommendations.

Stephen: members vote. Imperative that we whip the vote and reach out to as many ccNSO members as we can. Any questions or comments on Bart’s explanation? none


4.            Next meeting

15 Feb | 19 UTC
22 Feb | 19 UTC
1 March | 19 UTC
ICANN76

Peter: apologies for 15 and 22 Feb


5.            AOB

none


6.            Closure

Thank you all



Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20230201/bc4e2c25/attachment-0001.html>