June 2015 - Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Triage 28-2015: GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Gabriella Schittek June 30, 2015

June 30, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please, let me have your input by 3rd July 2015, in case you do not agree with Triage Recommendation 28-2015: GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration. Kind regards, Gabi == Topic: 28-2015: GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration Originator: GNSO Summary of request: The GNSO has developed seven recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendation s-2015-06-29-en Date received: 29 June 2015 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 10 August 2015 Recommended action, if any: No Action Expertise needed, if any: Legal, operational Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low ==

1 0

Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05)
by Nigel Roberts June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Martin has an extremely good point. BUT this needs to be relegated to a footnote at the very least. It is very easy for those outside the community to misinterpret the prominence it is currently given. And language needs to be inserted AS I UNDERSTOOD HAD BEEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREED to refer to the adoption of the Framework of Interpretation by the ICANN Board as a true construction of the existing policies. And it was my understanding that is exactly what was agreed in the meeting, and on that basis I cast my vote accordingly in favour of transmitting the proposal to the ICG. I really do not wish to have to issue a public clarification in this regard. By apparently resisting the clarificatio/footnoting that we agreed upon, some of you appear to be creating a perception of conspiracy where, I do not yet believe, any exists, it seems to me. If you were not there at the time (13 years ago), you really cannot appreciate the sensitivity here. Think of it as a Confederate Flag (or Hakenkreuz) issue, and I need you, please, don't start trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Nigel Roberts, ccNSO Council member (it should go without saying this is a personal input, but just in case that's not obvious . .) On 25/06/15 03:51, Martin Boyle wrote: > Do you know, I personally feel much more comfortable saying that ICP-1 is not agreed policy ("the [ccNSO] ityformally rejected the ICP-1 document "), given that the principles that are part of the proposals also clearly make reference to the idea that ICANN cannot just unilaterally invent policy. > > There is (particularly at this stage) harm in removing this text. > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse > Sent: 24 June 2015 17:40 > To: lisefuhrforwader > Cc: <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>; <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>; <cctldworld(a)icann.org>; J. William Semich; <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org> > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05) > > So, then there is no harm in removing it. > > el > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > >> On Jun 24, 2015, at 17:14, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The text in the CWG proposal is not contrary to what Bill and others says. >> Please see the text below regarding ICP-1 which is taken from the >> proposal page 8: >> >> "Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1). >> 24 This document from the Internet Coordination Policy group of ICANN >> was one of three such documents created by ICANN staff shortly after >> its creation. It attempted to update operational details over how the DNS >> was structured and should be run. >> >> 25 The ICP-1 document was a source of significant friction between >> ICANN and the ccTLD community and the Country Code Names Supporting >> Organization (ccNSO) formally rejected the ICP-1 document (final report of >> the ccNSO’s Delegation and Redelegation Working Group or DRDWG) arguing >> that it modified policy but did not meet the requirements for doing so at >> the time of its introduction in 1999. >> >> Best regards, >> Lise Fuhr >> Co-chair of CWG >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: owner-ccnso-members(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] På vegne af J. William Semich >> Sendt: 24. juni 2015 21:52 >> Til: Eberhard Lisse >> Cc: ccnso-members(a)icann.org; cctldworld(a)icann.org; >> cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; ccnso-council(a)icann.org; >> dns-admin(a)na-nic.com.NA >> Emne: Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Agenda ccNSO Council: >> decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local >> time (UTC >> 20.05) >> Prioritet: Høj >> >> >> To the ccTLD Council Members: >> >> .NU domain also objects to including any reference to ICP-1. >> >> ICP-1 was never presented to and was never approved by the ccTLD >> community; instead, ICANN staff created it out of whole cloth >> (“fabricated it”) at its first meeting in 1999 in Berlin (where I >> served the ccTLD community as a member of ICANN's initial DNSO Council). There was no ccNSO at that time. >> >> I still remember the meeting at which then-president Mike Roberts >> announced >> - with no warning to ccTLD managers - the imposition of ICP-1. >> >> And I still remember Andrew McLaughlin, an up-and-coming young >> telecommunications lawyer with no experience in internet governance or >> in TLDs, whom Roberts had hired to be his staff assistant to ”oversee” ccTLDs. >> >> At that meeting McLaughlin explained to ccTLD managers that from then >> on, ICANN would require that all ccTLD managers follow ICP-1, ICANN's >> “first Internet Coordination Policy." >> >> And I also still remember how McLaughlin's attempted explanation - >> presenting ICP-1 as a "fait accompli" - resulted in a small riot >> among managers who attended the meeting, which ended abruptly when we >> all walked out of the meeting. >> >> ICANN staff expected it could just come up with new policies, without >> consulting the community, and we would all just march in lockstep and >> obey, like good soldiers. >> >> Not exactly what we had thought would happen when ccTLD managers >> agreed to participate in the White Paper process that created ICANN in 1998. >> >> ICP-1 was never presented to the ccTLD community for consensus >> approval (in fact, ICANN staff repeatedly refused to present it for >> approval), and as such, ICP-1 has no basis for inclusion in any CWG Stewardship proposal. >> >> I remind you that the ccTLD Community strongly rejected it when it was >> presented in 1999 at the Berlin meeting (with no warning or >> consultation) and posted on ICANN’s website, and despite our strong >> objections, ICANN staff stubbornly and repeatedly ignored the negative >> input from ccTLD managers, and AFAIK, no manager has ever expressed any support for it. >> >> For many ccTLD managers who have been involved in this process since >> ICANN’s inception, ICP-1 was and still is a thorn in our side. >> >> Please consider this strong objection from .NU domain in your >> deliberations on this matter. >> >> Bill Semich >> .NU Domain >> Co-founder, ICANN >> Co-founder, ccNSO >> Co-founder and former Vice-Chair, APTLD Member, FOI-WG Former member, >> DNSO Council >> >> >>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Council, >>> >>> since I can't post to the Council List, and since I was on a DNSSEC >>> panel in the morning and am about to go to the CCWG Working Session >>> 2 I have not been able and will not be able to put my objection on >>> the record against the retention of the reference(s) of ICP-1 in the >>> CWG Stewardship proposal, which would be a show stopper for NA-NiC. >>> >>> greetings, el >>> >>>> On 2015-06-24 14:55 , Bart Boswinkel wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> Included the ccNSO Council agenda for today 24 June 2015. >>> [...] >>> >>>> *3. Support submission of the CWG-Stewardship Proposal to ICG* >>> [...] >>> -- >>> Dr Eberhard W Lisse >>> Managing Director >>> Namibian Network Information Centre (Pty) Ltd. >>> PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht >>> Namibia >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > _______________________________________________ > Cctldworld mailing list > Cctldworld(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld

1 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05)
by Chris Disspain June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Bill, I know this issue is important and I know how concerned you and others are. This really is a ‘typing’ error I believe. I will see if we can get it fixed. Cheers, Chris > On 25 Jun 2015, at 05:51 , J. William Semich <bill(a)nunames.nu> wrote: > > > To the ccTLD Council Members: > > .NU domain also objects to including any reference to ICP-1. > > ICP-1 was never presented to and was never approved by the ccTLD community; instead, ICANN staff created it out of whole cloth (“fabricated it”) at its first meeting in 1999 in Berlin (where I served the ccTLD community as a member of ICANN's initial DNSO Council). There was no ccNSO at that time. > > I still remember the meeting at which then-president Mike Roberts announced - with no warning to ccTLD managers - the imposition of ICP-1. > > And I still remember Andrew McLaughlin, an up-and-coming young telecommunications lawyer with no experience in internet governance or in TLDs, whom Roberts had hired to be his staff assistant to ”oversee” ccTLDs. > > At that meeting McLaughlin explained to ccTLD managers that from then on, ICANN would require that all ccTLD managers follow ICP-1, ICANN's “first Internet Coordination Policy." > > And I also still remember how McLaughlin's attempted explanation - presenting ICP-1 as a "fait accompli" - resulted in a small riot among managers who attended the meeting, which ended abruptly when we all walked out of the meeting. > > ICANN staff expected it could just come up with new policies, without consulting the community, and we would all just march in lockstep and obey, like good soldiers. > > Not exactly what we had thought would happen when ccTLD managers agreed to participate in the White Paper process that created ICANN in 1998. > > ICP-1 was never presented to the ccTLD community for consensus approval (in fact, ICANN staff repeatedly refused to present it for approval), and as such, ICP-1 has no basis for inclusion in any CWG Stewardship proposal. > > I remind you that the ccTLD Community strongly rejected it when it was presented in 1999 at the Berlin meeting (with no warning or consultation) and posted on ICANN’s website, and despite our strong objections, ICANN staff stubbornly and repeatedly ignored the negative input from ccTLD managers, and AFAIK, no manager has ever expressed any support for it. > > For many ccTLD managers who have been involved in this process since ICANN’s inception, ICP-1 was and still is a thorn in our side. > > Please consider this strong objection from .NU domain in your deliberations on this matter. > > Bill Semich > .NU Domain > Co-founder, ICANN > Co-founder, ccNSO > Co-founder and former Vice-Chair, APTLD > Member, FOI-WG > Former member, DNSO Council > > > On Jun 24, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: > >> Dear Council, >> >> since I can't post to the Council List, and since I was on a DNSSEC >> panel in the morning and am about to go to the CCWG Working Session >> 2 I have not been able and will not be able to put my objection on >> the record against the retention of the reference(s) of ICP-1 in the >> CWG Stewardship proposal, which would be a show stopper for NA-NiC. >> >> greetings, el >> >> On 2015-06-24 14:55 , Bart Boswinkel wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> Included the ccNSO Council agenda for today 24 June 2015. >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> *3. Support submission of the CWG-Stewardship Proposal to ICG* >> >> [...] >> -- >> Dr Eberhard W Lisse >> Managing Director >> Namibian Network Information Centre (Pty) Ltd. >> PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht >> Namibia >> > >

2 1

GNSO: Motion to adopt Transition Proposal (CWG-Stewardship)
by Patrick Myles June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Hi ccNSO councillors FYI - Please find below the motion to adopt IANA stewardship transition final proposal which will be before the GNSO council meeting on Wednesday. Resolve clauses at the bottom. Motion to adopt the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) Whereas; 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. 2. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions." 3. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related to the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components. 4. The GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and ALAC chartered a Cross Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. 5. On 1 December 2014, the CWG-Stewardship published its first draft proposal for public comment. The CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments, then received and updated its proposal accordingly, resulting in a second Draft Proposal<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-…> which was published for public comment on 22 April 2015. 6. After closure of the public comment period on the second draft proposal, the CWG-Stewardship reviewed all comments received, and, where appropriate, prepared responses to the comments received and took the input as input for the deliberations to finalize the proposals (see https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw) 7. Based on the second proposal and further discussion by the full CWG-Stewardship and Design Teams, taking into account the public comment analysis, the Final Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw> was developed and submitted to the chartering organizations for consideration on 11 June 2015. 8. As noted in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented substantially as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented substantially in the form contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this Final Proposal may require revision. Resolved; 1. The GNSO Council approves the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw> and its submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. 2. The GNSO Council approval is provided on the basis that the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal is conditional on the ICANN-level accountability mechanisms (Work Stream 1) being developed by the CCWG-Accountability and moreover that: a. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the GNSO Council and; b. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the ICANN Board and; c. All required bylaws amendments will need to be adopted before the transition and; d. All other required implementation will need to be completed before the transition or, if not implemented beforehand, that there will be irrevocable commitments of such implementation to be complete within a reasonable time period after the transition, not to exceed one year. 3. Following the submission of the Final Report of the CCWG-Accountability on Work Stream 1 and subsequent GNSO Council consideration, the GNSO Council will communicate the results of its deliberations on the CCWG-Accountability Final Proposal on Work Stream 1; including to the ICG, ICANN Board and NTIA, as necessary, and thereby confirm whether or not the conditionality requirements as set out in the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal have been met from a GNSO perspective. 4. In the event that the CCWG-Accountability mechanisms fail to meet the conditions in the CWG Stewardship Final Report, the GNSO Council must formally reconsider any material revisions to the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that may be made as a result of such failure by the CCWG Accountability to meet the stated conditionality. 5. The GNSO Council thanks the CWG-Stewardship for all its hard work and recommends that the CWG-Stewardship is only formally closed upon submission by the ICANN Board of the final transition proposal to the NTIA, thus allowing the CWG-Stewardship to provide input to the ICG and/or GNSO Council should any questions or issues arise before that time. Regards Patrick Myles Information Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org> - twitter: centrnews - Skype: pat_centr 2015 CENTR Awards<https://centr.org/awards2015>: nominate a project! [centr-awards]<https://centr.org/awards2015>

1 1

We're starting the Council meeting at 16.30!!!!
by Gabriella Schittek June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

1 0

Invite to attend final session on CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal: 15.30 - 16.30 ART ( UTC 18.30 - 19.30)
by Bart Boswinkel June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, You (members and non-members of the ccNSO) are kindly invited to attend and participate in the final joint ccNSO/Regional Organisation session on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal: Wrap-up and sensing support of the community for the Final Proposal. Time: Today, 24 June2015, 15.30 -16.30 ART (UTC 18.30 - 19.30) Room: La Pampa If you are not present you can join remotely Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05)
by Bart Boswinkel June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, Included the ccNSO Council agenda for today 24 June 2015. Please note that the ccNSO Council discussion and decision on the CWG Stewardship Final Proposal is expected around local time 17.05 ( UTC 20.05) Kind regards, Bart ccNSO Council agenda ------------- Draft Council agenda 24 June 2015 1. Welcome and apologies 2. Minutes and Actions Substantive matters 3. Support submission of the CWG-Stewardship Proposal to ICG Administrative matters 4 Approval of .BN application 5 Appointment of FOI advisory team 6. Guideline Review Committee 1. Retirement Interaction Strategic and Operational Plan Guideline. 2. Additional Volunteers GRC. 7. Appointment ccNSO members CCWG Use of Names of Country and territory names as TLDs. 8. SECIR 9. Additional Call for volunteers SOP WG Updates 10. Council Updates 11. WG Updates 12. Liaison Updates 13. Workplan 14. Next meetings 15. AOB 16. Thank you's

1 0

Updated agenda and draft resolutions Council meeting 24 June 2015, 17.00 ART ( UTC 20.00)
by Bart Boswinkel June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find included an updated agenda and where applicable the draft resolutions. Update: The decision on submission of the Final Proposal is now agenda item 3. Secondly, a new agenda item has been added: appointed of new members on the Use of country and territory names as TLDs. Finally, for those Councillors present in BA: the secretariat will provide a paper copy of the Agenda and draft resolutions. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

GNSO activity
by Patrick Myles June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Hi Councillors - Attached is a short overview of GNSO activity. The GNSO will meet for their council meeting today in the afternoon where they'll vote on the CWG final proposal. More details on GNSO activity will be available in the CENTR report on ICANN53 due later this week. Regards Patrick Myles Information Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org> - twitter: centrnews - Skype: pat_centr 2015 CENTR Awards<https://centr.org/awards2015>: nominate a project! [centr-awards]<https://centr.org/awards2015>

1 0

Agenda item 8, 24 June ccNSO Council meeting
by Bart Boswinkel June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the draft Resolution for item 8 for todays agenda. Kind regards, Bart ————————— Resolution on the Final Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) Background On 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition key Internet functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. The NTIA requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions." It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related to the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components. The GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and ALAC chartered a Cross Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). After intense deliberations and discussions and two extensive consultations of the broad community, the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship submitted a Final Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw> to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 to seek their approval for submission of the proposal to the ICG. In its Final Report, the CWG-Stewardship has noted that the proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned upon the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented substantially as envisioned, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. However, it is noted that the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal may require revision if any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented substantially in the form contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship Proposal. The ccNSO Council notes for the record the extensive outreach and engagement efforts, by the ccNSO appointed CWG –Stewardship members and ccTLD participants, the Regional ccTLD Organizations and the ccNSO itself to the broad ccTLD community. After intense discussions with the ccTLD managers present (members and non-members of the ccNSO), the ccTLD managers present expressed their [unanimous/broad support] for the CWG-Stewardship Transition Proposal for the naming related IANA Functions. Draft Resolutions 1. The ccNSO Council notes and welcomes the exemplary, long and intensive consultation efforts and process the CWG-Stewardship went through to gather input and feed-back from the community and wholeheartedly thanks all members and participants of the CWG-Stewardship for all its hard work 2. Taking into account the outreach, engagement and consultation efforts of the CWG-Stewardship, the outreach and engagement efforts of the ccNSO appointed members on the CWG-Stewardship, and the ccNSO and Regional ccTLD Organizations, and taking into account the extensive consultation of the ccTLD community present in Singapore and Buenos Aires, the ccNSO Council is in a position to take a decision on whether it supports the submission of the CWG-Stewardship Proposals to the ICG. 3. The ccNSO Council notes the [unanimous/broad support] for the CWG-Stewardship Proposal by the ccTLD community present at the sessions on the topic at the Buenos Aires joint meetings of the ccNSO and Regional Organizations. 4. Taking into account the [unanimous/ broad support] by the ccTLD present for CWG-Stewardship Proposal, the ccNSO Council supports that the CWG-Stewardship submits its Final Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw> to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. 5. The ccNSO Council support is based on the assumption that the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal is conditional upon the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms substantially in the form listed in the Final Proposal section 106, and which are part of the ICANN-level accountability mechanisms (Work Stream 1) being developed by the CCWG-Accountability and moreover that: a. These mechanisms will need to be supported by the ccNSO and; b. Approved by the ICANN Board and; c. All required bylaws amendments will need to be adopted before the transition and; d. All other required implementation be completed before the transition or, if not implemented beforehand, that there will be irrevocable commitments of such implementation to be complete within a reasonable time period after the transition, not to exceed one year. 6. Following the submission of the Final Report of the CCWG-Accountability on Work Stream 1 and subsequent ccNSO consideration of the proposals of the CCWG-Accountability, the ccNSO Council will communicate the results of these deliberations to the ICG, ICANN Board and NTIA, as necessary, to confirm whether or not the conditionality requirements as set out in the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal have been met from a ccNSO perspective. 7. The ccNSO Council recommends that the CWG-Stewardship only be formally closed upon submission, by the ICANN Board, of the final transition proposal to the NTIA, thus allowing the CWG-Stewardship to provide input to the ICG and/or ccNSO should any questions or issues arise before that time. 8. The ccNSO Council requests the secretariat to publish this resolution as soon as possible after the closure of this ccNSO Council meeting. In accordance to the rules of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf) the decisions in this resolution will become effective seven days after publication of these decisions by the Council. For the interim, the chair of the ccNSO is requested to inform the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship of decisions of the ccNSO Council under the assumption the decision is effective and subsequently, after seven (7) days, whether the decision has become effective.

1 0