Page History

...

• Mind Map version 2 retirement process.pdf
  
• Outline retirement document version 2.pdf
  
• Overview stakeholder analysis.pdf
  
• retirementprocess.2018-05-03.pdf
  
• Stakeholder analysis mind map update.pdf
  
• stakeholder.2018-05-03.pdf
  

Recordings: 

• Audio Only
• Zoom Room

Chat Transcript:

15:50:00 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi all, welcome
15:52:48 From nickw : Hi
15:53:10 From martin boyle : Hi
15:55:50 From Danko Jevtović : h
15:56:09 From sveta : Hello!
15:59:14 From Danko Jevtović : I have updated to the latest Win10, and now I dont have mic anymore (nor webcam)
16:00:03 From Kimberly Carlson : we're not using the webcams, you can type any comments in chat - are you able to hear the room?
16:00:04 From Allan MacGillivray : Hello everyone.
16:00:15 From Danko Jevtović : yes, no problem
16:00:22 From Kimberly Carlson : great
16:00:57 From lizwilliams : hi everyone…
16:03:43 From jaap : Temporary care take was also used for problems with .TK
16:04:01 From lizwilliams : @Stephen…in AOB could we have a timeline of the deliverables and what has to be written by when…
16:05:10 From Eberhard Lisse : there is no fixed timeline for deliverables as far as I see this, and we should perhaps do one step after the other
16:07:16 From Eberhard Lisse : We should put them on separate mind maps
16:08:45 From lizwilliams : I would like indicative timings attached to our work. We have to deliver something against a project and a timeline.
16:09:05 From Eberhard Lisse : No, we don’t
16:11:03 From lizwilliams : @Bart…is it proposed that there is a cost associated with the retirement of a cc? Could you add into your mind map a consideration of budget impacts on a) IANA and b) anyone else?
16:14:00 From Eberhard Lisse : Liz, IANA is a function, not an entity (as per FoI Terminology) and the entity concerned is PTI, so we also need to change this in the MindMap
16:19:15 From Eberhard Lisse : As lo g as we don’t mistake function for entity it’s fine
16:20:00 From lizwilliams : @ Bart — can’t hear your connection…
16:20:13 From Eberhard Lisse : bart we’can’t hear you
16:21:45 From lizwilliams : @Bart so could you put a little something somewhere to remind us that there is a financial implication.
16:22:36 From martin boyle : Agree with Eberhard
16:23:00 From Danko Jevtović : +1 O wouldnt go into budget
16:23:15 From lizwilliams : Thanks everyone…these are only questions to raise and it will be silly not to raise questions without understanding the implications…
16:24:01 From Debbie : yes, agree with Eberhard
16:24:31 From tom barrett : the mind map is an impressive piece of work!
16:24:47 From Danko Jevtović : it is essential to have questions :)
16:26:00 From nickw : bart is sounding a bit like stephen Hawkin tonight!
16:26:55 From Nenad Orlić : sound scrambled
16:33:08 From Peter Koch : line 40-42 still suggest that the ‘exceptionally reserved’ list was part of the standard
16:33:31 From Peter Koch : line 55: is this TLDs or code elements? maybe drop the “.” from “.YU”
16:34:43 From Peter Koch : line 57: “SSxit” is not a commonly used term, also the scenario is different from EU/UK for a variety of reasons, one being that neither EU nor UK are officially assigned code elements
16:34:48 From jaap : Note that AI (Afar and Issas) was never delegated. ISO stopped in 77
16:37:01 From jaap : NT was also never delegated
16:38:26 From jaap : Assigned is defined in ISO 3166; Unassigned is mentioned but not defined
16:39:59 From Barrack Otieno : ok
16:41:36 From Eberhard Lisse : Barrack, welcome :-)-O
16:46:58 From Nigel Roberts : If we are going to refer to "Brexit and SSxit" in this document, might I suggest we use the right names for the the relevant country.

"Great Britain" ceased to exist in 1801. The country's name has been "United Kingdom" since then.
16:47:34 From Nigel Roberts : I'm referring to line 59
16:50:15 From Nenad Orlić : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if we want be precise... :)
16:53:12 From jaap : Line 71 says it is out of scope
16:54:00 From Nenad Orlić : out of scope for sure
16:54:22 From Peter Koch : byw, line numbers were in fact altered during the portrait to landscape change, cf 66 portrait == 68 landscape
16:55:01 From Nenad Orlić : But in .eu space for UK companies
16:55:02 From Peter Koch : agree with deleting 63+64 (landscape)
16:55:09 From Nenad Orlić : That is not ccTLD retirement
16:55:50 From Patricio Poblete : Many other things are out of scope and we do not mention them. Why do we need to mention Brexit?
16:56:44 From Nenad Orlić : but its not ccTLD retirement
16:56:50 From lizwilliams : @Nick…it is more than politics…it is registrants’ identity and business under a contract for domain name registration.
16:57:11 From Patricio Poblete : Agree with Nenad
16:57:37 From jaap : I can understand the pain, but it is not in scope. In scope is drains that disappear because the ccTLD disappears
16:58:14 From lizwilliams : Question…should we think on the impact of the registry owner? This obviously affects a registry operator? Would that same impact be still the same in a retirement scenario? Really don’t know the answer.
16:59:26 From Eberhard Lisse : Liz, you are correct, but we must not forget, that Retirement is ultimately “triggered” by political events.
16:59:36 From Nenad Orlić : exctly
16:59:40 From Patricio Poblete : If you need to mention Brexit, put it in a footnote
17:00:09 From Patricio Poblete : It is not a retirement scenario
17:00:11 From Eberhard Lisse : In other words, ccTLD Retirement is not in isolation, but part of changes to/in the country concerned.
17:01:03 From Eberhard Lisse : wrap it up
17:01:12 From Nenad Orlić : lets speed up
17:01:20 From tom barrett : +1
17:01:45 From Nigel Roberts : Agree
17:01:49 From nickw : sorry everyone for that rant!
17:01:59 From Nigel Roberts : Don't be sorry. You are right.
17:01:59 From Patricio Poblete : Agree
17:05:21 From lizwilliams : Kim can send out the schedule for each of the calls…
17:06:07 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi, Liz yes
17:06:18 From lizwilliams : @Stephen…many thanks that is very helpful. We all need to be able to justify the time we spend on activities. And what the expected outcomes are.
17:07:04 From Barrack Otieno : true @ Liz Williams
17:07:41 From lizwilliams : @Bart super thank you
17:09:23 From Eberhard Lisse : I also agree we need GAC participation
17:10:06 From lizwilliams : +1 how do we get the GAC to send someone over to the nicest PDP group around…? Has another invitation been sent?
17:11:24 From Nenad Orlić : Does this group have legitimacy without them?
17:11:42 From Eberhard Lisse : Yes, of course, it’s a ccNSO policy.
17:11:57 From Eberhard Lisse : GAC doesn’t make ccNSO Policy.
17:11:57 From Nenad Orlić : thank you :)
17:12:07 From Nenad Orlić : I know, that's why i ask
17:12:10 From Eberhard Lisse : They’don’t even advise on ccNSO Policy.
17:12:20 From Kimberly Carlson : 17th, 0600 UTC - correct
17:12:24 From Nenad Orlić : not sure why it so important to have them
17:12:44 From Nenad Orlić : bye
17:12:44 From Eberhard Lisse : And, their participation will not guarantee buyin, but it was helpful in the past.
17:12:45 From bart.boswinkel : Thanks and bye
17:12:45 From tom barrett : bye!
17:12:51 From Kimberly Carlson : thank you, bye
17:13:04 From nickw : night!!
17:13:09 From jaap : bye all
17:13:11 From sveta : Thank you!
17:13:12 From martin boyle : bye & thanks