Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Action Item: WG members to review the draft Initial Report and provide any feedback (i.e. CANNOT LIVE WITH, CAN LIVE WITH but with changes, & Grammatical Edits) via the table documents linked below. The aim is to complete this review as well as any updates to the Initial Report before the end of July. To accomplish this, the WG is tackling its Initial Report review and discussion in 3 sections:

Homework 1: Group 1(a) + Annex 1-2 (due 9 July):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cFGxapltR3x9p49rPFV37RoNT6cBlwu8DPzndfZkosM/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]

Homework 2: Group 1(b) + Annex 3, 5-7, 11-12 (due 16 July):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FwzYxPkdjMlg92DjJvYBglByc3oPZ3Wuat9jBN4Tvg0/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]

Homework 3: Group 2 + Annex 8-10 (due 23 July):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wlJmb8P6kCtO2DSzr35TvS2zS21tR56-Ol9_ILVOkCo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]

Action Item: ICANN Org to make adjustments: [to be inserted Line 78]: Lastly, for the avoidance of doubt, the policy impact indicator, recommendation rationale, implementation guidance, and the linked summary deliberations are neither binding nor authoritative. These have been provided as supplementary text in an effort to help readers understand the context of the policy recommendations. Only the policy recommendation text itself is meant to be considered authoritative.

AI: Support staff to remove incorrect text from Recommendation 17.

AI: Support staff to implement reference change for accuracy.

AI: WG to review Group 1(a) Homework Outcomes [docs.google.com] (see right column of [linked doc])

1. Welcome and Chair Updates
   1. The goal is to review the initial report and be ready for public comment in 3 weeks.
   2. Emphasized the importance of completing homework assignments over the next few weeks.
   3. Importance of each participant reviewing necessary sections.
2. Review Initial Report - Group 1(a) homework  [docs.google.com]
   1. ICANN Org provided an overview of the review process, emphasizing the prioritization of "cannot live with" items.
   2. ICANN Org detailed the process for addressing feedback from the registrar stakeholder group and the steps for resolving critical issues.
   3. WG discussed the homework completed for section One A. Identified and addressed a few issues from the review.
   4. WG members praised the group's work on the technical and operational aspects of the report.
   5. WG members raised concerns about the terminology "DNS security threat." Suggested using more precise terms related to cybercrime, such as phishing or malware. WG members proposed referring to the updated Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
   6. WG members agreed that the TAC should be null immediately after validation to maintain security. WG members discussed the timing and process of nulling the TAC to avoid issues during pending status.
   7. WG agreed to add clear language differentiating policy recommendations from explanatory text.

AI: Support staff to remove incorrect text from Recommendation 17.

AI: Support staff to implement reference change for accuracy.

AI: WG to review Group 1(a) Homework Outcomes [docs.google.com] (see right column of [linked doc])

1. Introduce Group 1(b) section homework  
   1. ICANN Org confirmed the next meeting's agenda and preparations, encouraging thorough review of Group 1B recommendations and related annexes.
   2. ICANN Org introduced the next homework assignment and provided links to the documents for review. (see above)
2. AOB