Attendees:

Members:  Stephen Deerhake, Eberhard Lisse, Nigel Roberts, Tom Barrett, Barrack Otieno, Nick Wenban-Smity, Martin Boyle, Danko Jevtovic, Svitlana Tkachenko , Nenad Orlic, Peter Koch, Liz Williams, Debbie Monahan, Sean Copeland, Allan MacGillivray, Patricio Poblete

Participants: 

Observers and experts: Jaap Akkerhuis

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Kim Carlson

Apologies:  Kim Davies, Michele Neylon, Peter Van Roste, Naela Sarras, Barrack Otieno, Maureen Hilyard

Agenda:

  1. Welcome & Roll call
  2. Work Schedule  San Juan - Panama
  3. Continue with comparative analysis 
      • No comments on list. 
    1. Overview of process steps
      1. Detailed process map
      2. Outline version
    2. Role of stakeholders
      1. Update Stakeholders
      2. Outline version
  1. AOB
  2. Next meetings and Closure

Documents:  

Recordings: 

Transcript:  EN

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


  • No labels