February 2018 - Ccnso-council

Agenda and draft resolutions
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear all, Please find included the agenda and draft resolutions following the email from Thursday 8 February. Kind regards, Bart Agenda and resolutions ccNSO Council Meeting 15 February 2018 1) Welcome and Apologies Attendance list is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/attendance.htm 2) Minutes and Actions Minutes 18 January 2018 meeting. Circulated Friday, 9 February 2018. Action items: to be updated closer to the meeting. Action Item 137-01: The ccNSO Council thanks its travel committee for its report, and request the GRC to take the results into account and finalize the draft travel guideline by the next Council meeting for adoption by Council. Completed Action Item 137-02: The Council requests the secretariat to inform the SOPC about the re-confirmation and sent out a call for volunteers as soon as possible. Completed Action Item 137-03: It is recommended by the ccNSO Council Chair to review the initial slate of candidates, possibly identify candidates and propose them for consideration. According to the Bylaws, the Chairs must agree of final roster but Chairs consult their respective communities for guidance. Ongoing Action Item 137-04: Following the discussion, the Chair is requested to propose a resolution for an on-line decision as soon as feasible (participation RDS/WHOIS). Ongoing Action Item 137-05: The Councilors to provide comment on-line by 25 January 2018 23.59 UTC. The Chair to propose final text for on-line adoption by 29 January 2018, 23.59 UTC. And submit the agreed upon Council Statement by 2 February 2018. (op standards specific reviews). Completed Action Item 137-06: The secretariat is requested to propose a timeline considering the results of today’s discussion on timing and inform the Council by 2 February 2018 to allow Council to take a decision, if any, by its next meeting. (special election EU). Completed Action Item 137-07: Councilors are asked to submit comments regarding NomCom requirement document by 21 January 2018 – after which time, the document will be submitted to the NomCom. Completed Action Item 137-08: The ccNSO Council Chair reminded Council to review the FAQ document provided by the GAC. Completed 3) Overview inter-meeting Council decisions Adoption ccNSO Statement on draft Operational Standards Submitted 2 February 2018. Adoption requirement document NomCom appointees to the ccNSO Council Appointment additional member PDP Retirement WG Appointment additional members SOPC 4) Update & Discussion progress Work Track 5 Subsequent procedures (country and territory names Update 5) ccNSO Travel Funding 5.1 Progress Guideline: ccNSO travel funding For discussion 5.2 Number of ccNSO travel slots FY 19 Budget For discussion The ccNSO was assigned 17 slots for FY 18, with note that additional slots should be discussed of general community consultation on travel funding ( see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-fy18-budget-02j… , page 35-37) According to draft budget, and despite leveling of funding the ccNSO is assigned 16 (regular) + 1 (Chair) travel slots. This is same number as FY 18. To date the general community consultation on travel funding has not yet taken place. Question for Travel Funding Committee: Is the number of slots adequate? Question: need for comment by ccNSO Council? 6) GDPR implications secretariat activities Informational To ensure timely compliance to GDPR, the sign-up process for WG and other activities will be adjusted. 7) Study Group Emoji: Adoption draft Terms of Reference For decision The Board requested the ccNSO to look into the use of Emoji as Second level domains as currently some ccTLDs allow registration (for example see: http://domainincite.com/22575-emojis-coming-to-another-cctld ). Related, is the need to ensure that the Fast Track Implementation Plan and the overall IDN ccTLD policy refer to the IDNA 2008 suite and its successor, to avoid misunderstanding about the use of Emoji. Following the Board request the Council asked the ccNSO secretariat to draft Terms of Reference for an Emoji Study Group. The suggestion is to defer the decision on call for volunteers to the face-to face meeting, after the presentations and discussions on the topic at Tech Day and de ccNSO Meeting days. Draft Resolution Background The Board requested the ccNSO to look into the use of Emoji as Second level domains as currently some ccTLDs allow registration. Related, is the need to ensure that the Fast Track Implementation Plan and the overall IDN ccTLD policy refer to the IDNA 2008 suite and its successor, to avoid misunderstanding about the use of Emoji. The ccNSo Council discussed the need for a Study Group at its December 2017 meeting. Draft Decision The ccNSO Council adopts the terms of reference for the ccNSO Study Group on use Emoji as second level domains. The call for volunteers will be revisited at the next meeting of Council. 8) Update SSR 2 Informational See additional background material posted by the Chair 13 February 2018 9) Adoption revised Guideline: ccNSO Council Elections For decision The Guideline: ccNSO Council Election has been waiting for adoption by the Council for quite some time. With the upcoming (regular and special) elections, opportunity to adopt, without interfering in ongoing election process. Draft Resolution Decision: The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed Guideline: ccNSO Council Elections, which will become effective 7 days after publication of the decision on the ccNSO website. As soon as it has become effective the ccNSO Secretariat is requested to post the Guideline on the ccNSO Guideline page, archive the current guideline and inform the community accordingly. 10) Special Elections European Region For discussion Nigel Roberts indicated he will step down from his position as a Councillor in the course of 2018. His regular term would end in March 2020. As a result, the members in the EU region need to elect a new member to the ccNSO Council for the remainder of his period (until March 2020). Follow-up discussion meeting January 2018 on timing of election process: 3 scenarios and there implications 11) Approval updated membership application form For decision One of the recommendations following the 2017 Seat 12 Board Elections was to adjust the ccNSO membership application form to address issues that became apparent during the process. In addition the form needs to be updated to reflect the ICANN October 2016 Bylaws. Draft Resolution Draft Decision The ccNSO Council approves the updated version (item 11 of the background material meeting 15 February) of the ccNSO Membership application form. As soon as this decision has become effective ( 7 days after publication), the ccNSO is requested to replace the current form with the newly approved version. 12) PDP Retirement Informational: Update progress 13) CSC, RZERC and ECA related updates 13.1 CSC update (Byron) 13.2 RZERC update (placeholder) 13.3 Empowered Community Administration update (placeholder) 13.4 CSC Charter review (Abdalla) 14) ICANN 61 14.1 ccNSO Council meetings Sunday, 11 March (Day 2) 12:15-13:30 – ccNSO Council Preparatory Meeting (lunch) 13:30-15:00 – ccNSO Council Workshop Work plan & Prioritization (for reference included mind map of activities) Roles and Responsibilities / Tasks of Councillors Monday, 12 March (Day 3) 12:15-13:30 – Joint ccNSO / GNSO Tuesday, 13 March (Day 4) 11:00-12:00 – Joint Board / ccNSO – Room TBD 15:15-16:15 – Joint ccNSO / GAC Wednesday, 14 March (Day 5) 17:00-18:30 – ccNSO Council Face to Face Meeting Including, Chair and Vice-Chairs election 14.2 ICANN61 ccNSO Meetings Agenda 14.3 Topics meeting with ICANN Board Communication ccNSO related Board decision to ccNSO: Timing, interpretation of decision, work load impact. Impact of the leveling of ICANN's funding on ICANN’s priorities and priority setting mechanism Next steps for adoption of the IDN overall policy Board Topics for the ccNSO: two questions that the Board would like to submit to your attention for the upcoming face-to-face meetings in Puerto Rico: What are your key goals in 2018? The Board is interested in this question to make sure its own priorities are aligned with the community’s priorities. What are your most relevant longer-term goals? The Board is interested in this question because discussion about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between community, the Board and ICANN org. 14.4 Topics meeting ccNSO- GAC Progress WT 5 & role of ccNSO, GAC in process FAQ delegation, transfer and revocation ccTLDs: next ateps Role of agenda committee 14.3 Topics meeting ccNSO-GNSO Councils CSC Effectiveness & IANA Function review TBD 15) Council Updates 15.1 Chair Update 15.2 Vice-Chair Update 15.3 Councilors Update 15.4 Regional Organizations Update 15.5 Secretariat update 16 WG update 16.1 GRC update (Katrina) 16.2 CCWG Auction Proceeds (Ching) 16.3 CCWG Internet Governance (Young Eum) 16.4 CCWG Accountability WS 2 16.5 ccNSO Meeting Strategy review 17) Liaison Updates 17.1 GNSO Update 17.2 ALAC update 18) Next meetings (2018) 14 March – face to face, San Juan 26 April – 18:00 UTC 24 May – 12:00 UTC 27 June – face to face, Panama City 23 August – 12:00 UTC (July and Aug combined) 20 September 18:00 UTC October – face to face, Barcelona (date tbd) 15 November – 11:00 UTC 13 December – 17:00 UTC 19) AOB 20) Closure

1 0

REMINDER: Next ccNSO Council Call | 15 February @12:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear Councilors: As a friendly reminder, the next Council call will be Thursday, 15 February @12:00 UTC Please find the dial in details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://participate.icann.org/ccnsocouncil/ Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/uxG8B - attendance, recordings and prep material will be posted as they become available. Two-way audio will be available through the Adobe Room. Please let me know if you require a dial out. If you are unable to attend, please let Bart and I know as soon as possible. Thank you and kind regards, Kim

1 0

FW: [soac-chairs] SOAC Chairs Statement on status of SSR2 Review 2018-02-12
by Katrina Sataki Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

FYI -----Original Message----- From: soac-chairs [mailto:soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rod Rasmussen Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:09 PM To: SSR2 <ssr2-review(a)icann.org> Cc: Larisa Gurnick <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>; SOAC Chairs <soac-chairs(a)icann.org>; ICANN Board <icann-board(a)icann.org>; Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Subject: [soac-chairs] SOAC Chairs Statement on status of SSR2 Review 2018-02-12 All, Please see the attached for a statement from the SO/AC Chairs on the status of the SSR2 Review. Please redistribute as you feel appropriate. Thank you for your time and consideration of this statement. On behalf of the SO/AC Chairs, Rod Rasmussen SSAC Chair

1 0

Plan to Restart the Root Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover Process
by Joke Braeken Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear all, ICANN seeks community review of a plan to roll the root KSK for the Domain Name System (DNS) on 11 October 2018, including further study and publicizing of the upcoming rollover. Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-02-01-en Deadline comments: 2 April 2018 Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposal for Korean Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by Joke Braeken Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear all, The Korean community has formed the Korean Generation Panel (GP), which in turn has developed a Proposal for Korean Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Proposal[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.org_en_system_fi…> [XML, 547 KB] and Proposal Documentation[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.org_en_system_fi…> [PDF, 4.25 MB]). As per the LGR Procedure[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.org_en_system_fi…> [PDF, 772 KB], this proposal is being posted for public comments to allow those who have not participated in the Korean GP to make their views known to the GP. Based on the feedback, the Korean GP will finalize the proposal for submission for integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/korean-lgr-2018-01-25-en Last day for comments: 17 March 2018 Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Rejection Action guideline
by Katrina Sataki Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear Colleagues, Here come the long awaited guideline on Rejection Actions. We still miss one appendix but it is coming! Please have a look and submit your comments/questions/suggestions by the end of this week. The current plan is to submit the document to the ccNSO members for a two-weeks public comments period next week. On Wednesday we would like to inform the community about two webinars on 28 February and 2 March during which we (mainly Stephen) will walk them through the complexities of the process. Kind regards, ]{atrina

1 0

Assessment duration/shape ccNSO Members Meetings: we seek your input
by Joke Braeken Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear all, The ccNSO Meeting Strategy Review Working Group is seeking your input: The review is to assess the duration and shape of the ccNSO Members Meetings. It might lead to recommendations to change how ccNSO Members Meetings work, and your input is particularly valuable in shaping future ccNSO Members Meetings. How to provide your feedback? Via the online response form: https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/ccNSOmeetingstratreview (Estimated time for completion is 3 minutes) The survey will be open until Monday 26 February 2018, noon UTC. Next Steps An initial report with proposed recommendations by the ccNSO Meeting Strategy Review Working Group will be made available prior to ICANN61. A further session to consult the ccTLD community will be held on Tuesday 13 March 2018 at the ccNSO Members Meeting<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74587248> in San Juan (13:30-15:00). Where needed, the initial recommendations by the Working Group will be adjusted, and submitted for approval to the ccNSO Council, after ICANN61. Background * Background paper, about the ccNSO Meeting Strategy Review, the ICANN meeting strategy, and the ccNSO meeting distribution at ICANN meetings: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ccNSO+Meeting+Strategy+Worki… * Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ccNSO+Meeting+Strategy+Worki… On behalf of the ccNSO Meeting Strategy Review Working Group, thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets - The road forward for us
by Peter Vergote Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Hi Stephen, Thanks a lot for this brief and practical overview. This makes it very understandable and efficient to follow up! Best, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> [dns_punt_belgium_rgb] Van: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> namens Stephen Deerhake <SDeerhake(a)nic.as> Datum: zaterdag 10 februari 2018 02:39 Aan: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> CC: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Onderwerp: [ccnso-council] PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets - The road forward for us Greetings, As noted in correspondence earlier today from Katrina to the ccTLD Community, the Empowered Community has entered the 21-day Rejection Action Petition Period with regards to the adoption by the ICANN Board of the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets, and formal submission by the ICANN Corporate Secretary of the Board’s Rejection Action Board Notice, as required by Section 22.4(b)(v) and Annex D, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. Further, as detailed in Katrina’s email and documented in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A), any Rejection Action Petition submitted by a member of the Empowered Community must be “…based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period…”. The purpose of this correspondence to the Council is two-fold. First, it is intended to provide you with an overview of the issues raised during the public comment period, so that you (a) some familiarity with the public comments submitted with respect to the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets, and (b) have the necessary background to properly review either any Rejection Action Petition received from a member of the ccTLD Community, or a request by another SO/AC to the ccNSO that the ccNSO support a Rejection Action Petition that they are submitting on behalf of one of their organizational members. Second, I offer my opinion with respect to the viability of a successful Rejection Action Petition submission vis-à-vis the requirements for such a Petition as set forth in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A), given the submitted public comments. The summary of the public comments prepared by ICANN Staff is available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-pti-iana-…. No comments were submitted by any member of the ccTLD Community, nor by any ccNSO Working Group or Standing Committee authorized to submit public comments on behalf of the ccNSO. A total of four comments were received and reviewed by ICANN Staff, all from the GNSO (one comment from the Registries Stakeholder Group, two comments from the GNSO Business Constituency, and one comment from the GNSO Council.) Comments received break down into the following broad categories: 1. Comments and questions relating to the Audits performed on IANA Functions 2. Comments and questions relating to Capital Expenditures 3. Comments and questions relating to the Operating Plan and Budget Document Structure/Format 4. Comments and questions relating to the actual Budgeted Amounts 5. Comments and questions relating to PTI Separation None of the comments indicate any serious disagreement with the adopted PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets. Most are either questions regarding audit details or equipment depreciation, or compliments regarding the separation of the PTI and IANA budgets for easier analysis. One (minor) area of concern is that given the small size of the overall budget, greater granularity of the amounts in the budget would be useful. If there is any area with a bit of friction, it is the comments and questions relating to PTI Separation, but even here there is no discernable sense of serious “upset” with regards to the PTI Separation issue (should it ever arise). It should be noted that the PTI Separation, and specifically reserve funding for it, is part of the ICANN Bylaws (Article 19) and part of the on-going discussion about the ICANN Reserve Fund discussion (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-reserve-fund-08… for the public comments submitted on the topic of the Reserve Fund). Based on my review of the submitted comments and ICANN Staff response to the comments received, I see no basis for a Rejection Action Petition being submitted by any SO/AC with respect to the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets that would qualify for Empowered Community Administration consideration under Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A). Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry

1 0

PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets - The road forward for us
by Stephen Deerhake Feb. 10, 2018

Feb. 10, 2018

Greetings, As noted in correspondence earlier today from Katrina to the ccTLD Community, the Empowered Community has entered the 21-day Rejection Action Petition Period with regards to the adoption by the ICANN Board of the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets, and formal submission by the ICANN Corporate Secretary of the Board’s Rejection Action Board Notice, as required by Section 22.4(b)(v) and Annex D, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. Further, as detailed in Katrina’s email and documented in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A), any Rejection Action Petition submitted by a member of the Empowered Community must be “…based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period…”. The purpose of this correspondence to the Council is two-fold. First, it is intended to provide you with an overview of the issues raised during the public comment period, so that you (a) some familiarity with the public comments submitted with respect to the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets, and (b) have the necessary background to properly review either any Rejection Action Petition received from a member of the ccTLD Community, or a request by another SO/AC to the ccNSO that the ccNSO support a Rejection Action Petition that they are submitting on behalf of one of their organizational members. Second, I offer my opinion with respect to the viability of a successful Rejection Action Petition submission vis-à-vis the requirements for such a Petition as set forth in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A), given the submitted public comments. The summary of the public comments prepared by ICANN Staff is available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-pti-iana-…. No comments were submitted by any member of the ccTLD Community, nor by any ccNSO Working Group or Standing Committee authorized to submit public comments on behalf of the ccNSO. A total of four comments were received and reviewed by ICANN Staff, all from the GNSO (one comment from the Registries Stakeholder Group, two comments from the GNSO Business Constituency, and one comment from the GNSO Council.) Comments received break down into the following broad categories: 1. Comments and questions relating to the Audits performed on IANA Functions 2. Comments and questions relating to Capital Expenditures 3. Comments and questions relating to the Operating Plan and Budget Document Structure/Format 4. Comments and questions relating to the actual Budgeted Amounts 5. Comments and questions relating to PTI Separation None of the comments indicate any serious disagreement with the adopted PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets. Most are either questions regarding audit details or equipment depreciation, or compliments regarding the separation of the PTI and IANA budgets for easier analysis. One (minor) area of concern is that given the small size of the overall budget, greater granularity of the amounts in the budget would be useful. If there is any area with a bit of friction, it is the comments and questions relating to PTI Separation, but even here there is no discernable sense of serious “upset” with regards to the PTI Separation issue (should it ever arise). It should be noted that the PTI Separation, and specifically reserve funding for it, is part of the ICANN Bylaws (Article 19) and part of the on-going discussion about the ICANN Reserve Fund discussion (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-reserve-fund-08… for the public comments submitted on the topic of the Reserve Fund). Based on my review of the submitted comments and ICANN Staff response to the comments received, I see no basis for a Rejection Action Petition being submitted by any SO/AC with respect to the PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets that would qualify for Empowered Community Administration consideration under Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A). Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry

1 0

Draft resolution on non-participation in RDS/WHOIS2 specific review
by Katrina Sataki Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

Dear Colleagues, As decided during our January call, here is a draft resolution for our decision not to participate in the RDS/WHOIS2 specific review. Again, as decided, I contacted Alan Greenberg, the chair of the review team, and asked if they need any new participants with specific skill-set. The RT has all the necessary skills to complete their work, which means we can move forward with this resolution (sorry for the delay). Draft Resolution Background In May 2017 the ccNSO Council informed the ICANN Board of Directors that it did not consider itself to be in a position to nominate volunteers to the RDS/WHOIS2 review team for the following reasons (see: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2017-05/s ataki-to-crocker-02may17-en.pdf): - Unclear scope and process to define scope. The scope of the RDS /WHOIS 2 review has been defined. - Concurrent processes relating to RDS /WHOIS. - Impact of EU GDPR and its implementation. The ccNSO expected that the GDPR and its required implementation would have a major impact on RDS and hence on any review, implying that any review of current processes and policies would be affected by the GDPR. The Chair of the ccNSO was approached by the RDS/WHOIS review team to consider participation by the ccNSO, as the Review Team has almost agreed on the terms of Reference for the review. The ccNSO Council discussed the request to consider participation at its meeting on 18 January 2018. The consensus view at the meeting was that at least 2 out of the 3 concerns are still outstanding, with the major one being the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation and its potential impact on WHOIS/RDS, including the recommendations of the first WHOIS review. Decision The ccNSO Council decides that the ccNSO will not participate in the RDS/WHOIS2 specific review. The ccNSO Council requests its chair to inform the chairs of the other participating Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committee and other relevant parties. The ccNSO Council thanks the volunteers who sought endorsement of the ccNSO. Please let me know by Friday, 16 February, if you object to the resolution. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina

1 0