16:01:37	 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome to today’s PDP on retirement working group call on 6 February at 23:00 UTC. In the interest of time, attendance will be taken based on those on Zoom.  Apologies have been received from:  Nick Wenban-Smith, Kristina Hakobyan, Eberhard Lisse, Jaap Akkerhuis. Bernard Turcotte.  As a reminder, all calls are recorded and transcribed; recording/transcripts are posted on the public wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/9ZczBw.  Also, please remember to mute your phones and microphones when not speaking to avoid background noise.
16:02:48	 From Joke Braeken : correct
16:18:48	 From Peter Koch : I’m not convinced that the wg should voice an opinion on a particular case
16:19:42	 From Peter Koch : however, the ‘trigger event’ in that case has long since passed, so operationally how would the policy be applied?
16:19:51	 From Allan MacGillivray : will type a comment
16:20:45	 From kim.davies : Not suggesting the wg should chime in on a specific case. To phrase it in the reverse, does the policy _constrain_ actions on pre-existing cases?
16:21:58	 From Allan MacGillivray : If we wish to have the policy to retirments in process, we will have to specifically allow for this.  One option might be to deem that the code was removed from ISO3166 on the day that the new policy comes into force.  That is the 10 year clock would start on the day the pocli is approved by the ICANN Board.
16:22:42	 From Allan MacGillivray : pocli=policy
16:22:45	 From Peter Koch : @kim: don’t see why if agreed between ccTLD manager and IFO, policy should not be applicable
16:23:26	 From kim.davies : but if not agreed?
16:25:41	 From Sean Copeland : I agree with it not being retroactive but can't it be a recommended best practices of parties agree
16:27:29	 From kim.davies : the only thing retroactive is the initial triggering event, otherwise the fact remain contemporary
16:28:32	 From Peter Koch : re: Allan and Kim: problem is that ‘the case’ is in the same situation as EU, UK and others, so if the trigger starts when Board approves policy, shouldn’t it start for all of those (obviously rhetoric question ...)
16:29:06	 From kim.davies : @Peter: EU, UK and AC are covered under our current policy interpretation and are not at risk.

16:29:41	 From Stephen Deerhake : +1 Kim.  They are not at risk via my interpretation as well.
16:31:42	 From Peter Koch : tough question is what happens if ‘the case’ loses ‘exceptionally reserved’ status …, but then again individual history of SU (now that Stephen named it) is different from UK, EU, and AC
16:33:38	 From Allan MacGillivray : If the new policy does not apply to pending cases, then PTI/IANA should not be constrained by the new policy.
From my point of view, starting the 10 year clock on the day the policy comes into force is not an example of retroactive application.
16:34:10	 From Peter Koch : in summary, I think it’s going to be a one-off and thus not for the WG to decide
16:35:57	 From Allan MacGillivray : A case could be made that there is a possibility of other new retirements commencing before the policy is fully impleneted and in force.  Therefore we could make a general comment on its application to cases in progress.
16:45:18	 From Joke Braeken : 20 February 2020 (05:00 UTC)
7 March 2020 (15:15 - 18:30 local) : ICANN67
16:46:08	 From Joke Braeken : the policy session is held during day 1 of the ccNSO Members Meeting (Tue, 10 March): 10:30-11:00
16:47:26	 From Kimberly Carlson : The meeting on the 7th:  PDP3 Ret will meet 1515-1645; PDP3 RM will meet 1700-1830
16:54:38	 From Sean Copeland : thanks all
16:54:39	 From kim.davies : cheers