May 2024 - Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

adopted Operating Plans and Budget: Rejection Action Petition period started
by Joke Braeken May 10, 2024

May 10, 2024

Dear members of the ccTLD Community, First, apologies for cross-posting. I am writing to you on behalf of Sean Copeland, the ccNSO Rejection Action Process Manager, to inform you that on 5 May 2024 the ICANN Board of Directors adopted ICANN's FY25–29 Operating and Financial Plan, the ICANN FY25 Operating Plan and Budget, and the IANA FY25 Operating Plan and Budget. See the announcement here<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-operating-and-financia…>. The resolution is available here<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…>. To view the plans, click here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/current-en>. On 9 May 2024, the ccNSO as one of the Decisional Participants received a notice from the ICANN Secretary pursuant to Section 22.5(a)(v) of the ICANN Bylaws, which initiated the 21 days Rejection Action Petition Period for the community. The deadline for submission of a Rejection Action Petition(s) to the ccNSO role account (ccnso-petions(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-petions@icann.org>) is 30 May 2024 at 23:59 UTC. If you are interested in submitting a Rejection Action Petition with respect to the adopted Operating Plan and Budget, please consult Section 2 of Annex D<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD> of the ICANN Bylaws for the requirements, which must be met. Please be advised that per Annex D Section 2.2(a)(i)(A) the Rejection Action Petition must be: “…based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN's stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community.” Please see also our internal ccNSO Guideline<https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guideline-rejection-actions-procedure-24may18…>: ccNSO Procedure for the Exercise of the Empowered Community's rights to Reject Specific Actions. According to the Guideline, the ccNSO will consider a Rejection Action Petition from the following constituents: * ccTLD managers, * Individual(s) directly related to a ccTLD manager, * ccNSO working groups or committees mandated to submit such a pe//on, * Regional ccTLD organisations (as defined in sec/on 10.5 of the ICANN Bylaws), * the ccNSO Council. All relevant information will be published at: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Rejection+actions Kind Regards, On behalf of Sean Copeland, ccNSO Rejection Action Process Manager, Joke Braeken, ccNSO Secretariat joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> ICANN80 Links to Bookmark Now * ccNSO Schedule https://community.icann.org/x/GQBkEw * ccNSO Session Highlights https://community.icann.org/x/wYCfEw * Tech Day https://community.icann.org/x/OgBkEw

1 0

Draft Agenda Meeting 205 ccNSO Council 16 May 2024| 21.00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel May 8, 2024

May 8, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming meeting. Also included background that was already circulated, but with a reference to the various agenda items. * Item 13- Voting Report ccPDP4 Council Recommendation; * Item 19 – Note Discussion skills and expertise and timeline call for volunteers Pilot Holistic Review Kind regards, Bart ------------ Draft Agenda ccNSO Council Meeting 205 16 May 2024, 21.00 UTC 1. Welcome and roll call * Establish whether meeting is Quorate * Update Statement of Interest For information <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/ccnso-internal-procedure-general-soi-coi-2…> Guideline<https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/ccnso-internal-procedure-general-soi-coi-2…> & <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfRpehiCw2ty2PYRiaPG0K3lZSKk9LrLPQ…> Template<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfRpehiCw2ty2PYRiaPG0K3lZSKk9LrLPQ…> Administrative matters 1. Relevant Correspondence<https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm> * Letter from Katrina Sataki, chair of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM (Letter dated 2 March 2024) to be discussed under item 11. * Letter Larisa Gurnick, ICANN Org, on Pilot Holistic Review - Call for Volunteers and Preliminary Steps, to be discussed under item 19 (forwarded on 3 May 2024). 1. Minutes & Action Items * Minutes Meeting 204: Circulated 6 May 2024 * Action items Action Item 204-01: The Chair and vice-chairs will review the current external appointments and make suggestions to complete the roster by the May meeting. (Completed) Action Item 204-02: Council to discuss the third CSC review at the May meeting. (Completed, see agenda item 17 ) Action Item 204-03: Secretariat to adjust Purpose and Goals statement approval date (to April 2024) (Completed and posted on ccNSO website) Action Item 204-04: ccNSO Council and Triage committee to jointly plan a resource capacity workshop prior to ICANN80. (Completed) Action Item 204-05: Post ICANN80, Council to decide whether to keep the policy gap analysis group ad-hoc or create a fully mandated working group.(Pending, item to be scheduled at later date) Action Item 204-06: Secretariat to inform DASC and IGLC leadership of Federica Tortorella’s appointment to both groups. (Completed) Action Item 204-07: Chair to inform ISOC.LB and ccNSO membership. (Completed) Action Item 204-08: Secretariat to assist drafting response (Google Doc) to Tripti Sinha’s letter on amendment recommendation 7 on CCWG Auction Proceeds. Small group of Councillors to draft response (Alejandra, Chris, Olga, Jenifer, Tatiana added to the small group) (Completed) Action Item 204-09: Secretariat to suggest new Terms of Reference for OISC by meeting 205 of the ccNSO Council (May 2024). (Completed, included on agenda 15) Action Item 204-10: Secretariat to send call for volunteers: small group to review World Café outcomes (Completed, see agenda item 18) Action Item 204-11: Chair to send an email to Council regarding the preference to discuss the questions received from the Board Caucus on ccPDP Review Mechanisms, at the next meeting (16.May) or have an extraordinary call before. (Completed, see intermeeting decisions) 1. Intermeeting Decisions (since meeting 204, April 2024) * 204-A Procedure to handle the requests for clarification and confirmations of interpretation section 2-6 Board report ccPDP3 RM * 204-B Approval letter to chair of the iCANN Board re amendment recommendation 7 and change of Article 4 of the ICANN Bylaws * 204-C Approval letter to Katrina Sataki and Patricio Poblete 1. Intermeeting decisions Triage Committee The Triage Committee has made no decisions since the last meeting. Updates 1. Update ECA, IFRT & CSC (written updates) 1. Update WGs (written updates) * IGLC * GRC * SOPC * OISC (no meetings pending update charter) * TLD-OPS * DASC * Technical WG * MPC * UAC * Registrant capacity ad-hoc group * IRP Panel selection * CCG WS 2 Implementation * New: CIP-CCG * 1-on-1 ICANN CEO and ccNSO leadershipPrioritization Framework group 1. Update liaisons (written updates) * Update ALAC Liaison * Update GNSO Liaison * Update UASG Liaison 1. Update ccNSO Website redesign Informational 1. Update Triage Committee: Monitor portfolio of Activities 2024-2025 For information and discussion This is the final monitor of the 2024-2025 portfolio of activities 1. Progress GAP Analysis & Response ccPDP3 RM questions 1. Update Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat Administrative Matters & Decisions 1. Results Members Vote ccPDP4 * Voting Report for adoption * Next Step: Board Report 1. Appointment Members to Committees and Working Groups, if any 1. Update OISC Terms of Reference Substantive Matters & Decisions 1. Review External appointments: next steps 1. 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review: preliminary discussion how to handle the review For discussion According to the ICANN Bylaws and Charter of the Customer Standing Committee, the 3rd CSC effectiveness review is expected to start around 1 October 2024. The 2nd Review was concluded in June 2022, and one of the recommendations was to amend the ICANN Bylaws (and Charter of the CSC) to expand the duration between the reviews to five years after the previous review was concluded. Amending section 17.3 is a Fundamental Bylaw change. Further, according to section 17.3 (b) the method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website. 1. Discussion and decision on next steps the world cafés outcomes on keeping the ccNSO relevant next 7 years For Information & discussion 1. Discussion skills and expertise and timeline call for volunteers Pilot Holistic Review For discussion ICANN intends to launch a call for volunteers for the Pilot Holistic Review on 23 May 2024. The Call for Volunteers launches the application phase, followed by the nomination and selection phase. Based on the terms of Reference the following skills and expertise were identified: * Performance assessment and audits of organizational effectiveness and governance * Development of methodologies and guidelines for process improvement and measurement * Data analysis informing fact-based findings and recommendations * Familiarity with ICANN Reviews, and ICANN structures * Knowledge of recognized frameworks for organizational excellence * Principles of accountability applicable to organizations broadly similar to ICANN 1. ccNSO relevant meetings ICANN80 (10-13 June 2024) * Prep week ICANN80: 28-30 May 2024 * Prep Council meeting: 30 May 2024 | 14:00 UTC (Conference call) * Working session: discussion portfolio of activities 1 July 2024 - 30 June 2026 * Prep session ICANN80 * Joint Meetings * Virtual meeting GNSO Council - 11 July 2024 13:00 UTC (The meeting with the GAC is deferred to ICANN81) * Special Event: Tuesday 11 June 2024 - block 5 * Tentative Block Schedule 1. AOB 1. Next Council Meetings * June 13 @ICANN80 (206) – time TBD * July 18 – 12:00 UTC (207) * August 22 (208) – 18.00 UTC (208), may be deferred * September 19 – 12:00 UTC (209) * October 17 – 21:00 UTC (210) * November 14 @ICANN80 – (211) – time TBD * December 12 – 12:00 UTC (212) * January 16, '25 - 18:00 UTC (213) * February 13, '25 - 12:00 UTC (214 1. Adjourn

1 0

Draft Resolution drafting team and procedure response to the set of questions ccPDP3 RM sections 2-6
by Bart Boswinkel May 8, 2024

May 8, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the resolution following yesterday’s discussion. Kind regards, Bart ------- Resolution 204-A Background The ccNSO received a series of requests for clarification and requests for confirmation regarding interpretation on section 2- 6 of the ccNSO’s Board Report pertaining to a recommended policy for ccTLD Review Mechanisms for a limited number of decisions by the IANA Function Operator (currently PTI). The ccNSO Council discussed various options on how to handle the questions at its meeting on 7 May 2024 | 20.00 UTC, which was quorate and mandated to take decisions. The ccNSO Council was also informed that given the urgency of this work, the work on the GAP analysis will be on hold for the duration of the drafting of the responses. Decision The ccNSO Council agreed and supports that: * A drafting team comprised of members of ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG and Councillors who were not members of the WG will draft the responses to the questions. * Councillors who are members of the ccPDP RM working group: Stephen Deerhake, Nick Wenban-Smith, Sean Copeland, and Peter Koch. * Councillors who were not members of the ccPDP3 WG: Jordan Carter, and Pablo Rodriquez. * The drafting team will be co-chaired by the Chair of the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG (Stephen Deerhake) and a Councillor who was not a member of the WG (Jordan Carter). * Stephen Deerhake, as Chair of the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG, is requested to circulate a call for volunteers to this working group to participate in drafting the responses. * The drafting team is requested to meet as soon as possible and make optimal use of the time between 8 May and ICANN80. * The ccTLD community will be informed by Kigali on receiving the questions, and manner in which they are handled. If necessary, a webinar will be organised post Kigali * After the drafting team has completed its work and the ccNSO community has been informed, the ccNSO Council will approve the responses and the Chair of the Council Council shall send the responses to Katrina Sataki, Chair of the Board Caucus. As the topic is administrative in nature in accordance with section 1.2 of the Internal Rules of the ccNSO, this resolution becomes effective upon publication.

1 0

NOTES | Extraordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 7 May 2024 | 20:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken May 7, 2024

May 7, 2024

NOTES | Extraordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 7 May 2024 | 20:00 UTC 1. Welcome Welcome by Alejandra LACNIC in Panama. Jenifer sent her apologies One AOB: response to Katrina and Patricio re meeting with individual board members at ICANN meetings Alert: we need feedback, if any, on letter to Tripti regarding changing recommendation 7 and the related bylaw amendment. 2. Admin matters a. Update SoI? Jordan: I am no longer member of the committee for NETmundial+10 b. Quorum Claudia: Quorum is met Apologies from Molehe and Jenifer. c. Special nature of the meeting See Council practices guideline. Agenda was nor available one week prior. Decision to meet was only made last week Any objections to making a decision today? none 3. Introduction & Background Focus on handling the list of questions, involvement of community and possible timelines. Alejandra: brief intro on where we are. We received questions from the Board Caucus, not from the whole ICANN Board. Katrina mentioned in her letter that the questions are asked to assess feasibility of implementation. So my take is that after reading the questions and looking again at the sections 2 to 6 of the Board Report, apparently the text is not clear enough i.e leaves room for interpretation and needs additional clarification to allow ICANN to implement the proposals. It is also my understanding that in terms of the ccPDP the Board is still considering the policy following its own internal procedures, and the Board has not taken any decision, therefore this is not and should not be treated as a request for a supplemental recommendation. Supplemental Recommendations as mentioned in Annex B presume a Board vote and a request for change of the policy. Some may question the duration of the consideration process, but it should not come as a surprise either. We learned this lesson with the retirement policy, and I expect it will happen again with ccPDP4. Going forward, I know we want to see results and move as quickly as possible, but we also need to be mindful that we need to follow a process and we should focus on quality rather than speed. So the focus of today's meeting is on the steps we need to take to move forward, and not on the list of questions themselves. Stephen: brief history. 15 year journey Began with DRD WG. Task related to IANA decisions. RFC1591 and GAC principles. DRD WG presented its report in San Francisco Then FOI WG, this is where my involvement started. Refers to scope of the FOI WG. Active participation from GAC. ccPDP3 split into 2 subgroups. First Nigel Roberts chaired, then Stephen Reference to dates when reports were submitted to Council, and member vote took place RM policy under consideration since 2009. I chaired the WG for the past 6 years. Sharing my concerns regarding the questions with the WG and Bernie made sense to me. Was surprised by the reaction. Bernie and I have been working on responses. We are not finished yet. Alejandra: thank you for the hard work. ccPDPs take a long time. Since we need to involve the community. Stephen: it is tough Alejandra: council will decide today how to move fwd. Not damaging that you reached out to WG on your own, but would have been better to wait for today Stephen: i was trying to move quickly Alejandra: first we discuss, how to act, and then act. Hence our meeting today 4. Possible Scenarios to handle the list of questions Alejandra: assume that we all agree that we need to provide responses to the questions? Yes, only green ticks So as we all agree the ccNSO needs to respond, I suggest we use the following procedure: * First a team draft the responses * Secondly, we inform and consult the membership * Finally, the Council approves the responses, and sends them to Katrina as chair of the Board Caucus. Stephen: Bernie and I looked at all the questions. We have 12 answers to still provide My suggestion is we continue, and then bring our draft to council Alejandra: Nice proposal. We still need to decide as a group. I wish some fresh eyes in the drafting team, recognising you are the experts who have been working for a long time on it. To address potential ambiguity. Stephen: we submit our responses to Council for peer review Jordan: getting draft answers is the best way to go. As part of that process leads to education for some of us, that were not so involved. Option D would work. Most of the questions are easy to answer. Stephen: some answers are really simple Peter: agree with Stephen’s suggestion, as a part of the process. I have been part of the WG, and do not claim special expertise. If we have the list of responses, at some point we need to decide whether we structure this in a different way. For some an omnibus response. Subliminal message. Process wise and substance. It does not hurt to have 40 responses. It should not mean we will approve them and send them back. We need to draft the response more carefully Bart: background of the questions. Order refers to section 2 to 6. Hence the reference. Some questions are straightforward, and some require further consideration and understanding of potential implications. If you change the order, you change the order of the sections. It would require translation back. Makes it more complicated. When looking at the agenda, you start to explore the way to address the questions. First decide on a high level procedure how you want to handle it. There is an important question regarding how to involve the broader community. Do not discuss now the list of questions and how to address them, first decide on the procedure. Peter: fully agree. Rephrase. Just answering the questions is probably not enough. Have a conversation about subtext of the message, and send additional messages back. There needs to be more info exchange Stephen: agree with Peter. We should answer in their format. Happy to continue on that. Then submit to council or subgroup, and provide additional commentary. We should send back the spreadsheet, to avoid further delay. Alejandra: summary. Yes, we need to respond. Option D seems to be preferred. Co-chaired by WG chair Stephen and another council member. Thus we have the expert, and fresh eyes as well. Trying to be precise and less ambiguous. Would solve both. This group could also address what was suggested. Stephen: agree. Educating a new generation of councillors. It is critical for the ccnso. No problem in having them review the work, and have them comment on the proposed answers by myself and stephen. Alejandra: do you agree with the approach? Green ticks in Zoom Jordan: i'd like to be part of the work since I feel it might be helpful for the policy gaps work Alejandra: other volunteers? Jordan, Sean, Nick, Pablo, Peter, Stephen and Bernie a. No response to questions b. Working group reviews questions and suggests responses, to be approved by Council c. Council only group: members and non-members of the ccPDP3 RM WG (Councillors who are members of the WG: Stephen, Nick, Peter, Sean), responses to be approved by Council d. Combined group of Council and working group members, co-chaired by chair of the WG and Council member suggests responses, to be approved by Council Note: Approval of responses is a Council decision, subject to membership vote if so requested by members. This is not about change of policy, nor supplemental recommendation. Bart: would it be wise, to ask the email list? Formally ask for volunteers from the WG outside of council and staff? Stephen: good idea. Bart: just send an email. Stephen: doubt I would receive a response. Just from Nigel Jordan: when you go to the group, refer to decision in number 5. Stephen: i will send my draft to you Bart for review, before i send it to the list. Bart: thanks 5. Involvement of broader community? a. Need to inform and involve ccNSO Membership in process? Alejandra: believe so. Do you agree? Stephen: what are we telling them? Alejandra: inform community on progress. Update. Get temperature of the room. If the drafting team finds elements that are useful to have the input from the community Jordan: transparency purposes and importance of PDP work. We should not send the list of questions and ask what they think, we should also not ask them to approve them. Turnover in the work of the ccNSO. The policy gaps work is less urgent than finishing this PDP. if we need the time in Kigali, we could use the slot originally foreseen for the gap analysis. Better than just a 3-min. Update: we have questions, we are going to reply. Stephen: yes, happy with Kigali Alekandra: thank you Jordan Nick: depends on when we finish the review of the answers. Is there impact on the policy? Does it require a new membership vote? Some answers are not easy. Do we need a ratification of these answers, what is the process? Transparency is important. Consequences for the community? Matters of principle. Potential need for another vote? Original mandate. Update is necessary. First we need to review the questions carefully, before we can decide what the next steps will be. Alejandra: I understood. The questions do not require major change. More clarification on things. I do not see the need for another vote. Just questions for clarification, this is not about changing the policy Stephen: we have 11 questions, where the response is something else than “correct”. Alejandra: agree we need to be transparent, and inform the community. b. Timing involvement ccNSO Membership: i.Kigali (ICANN80, June 2024) ii.Istanbul (ICANN81, November 2024 iii.Intersessional (September 2024?) Note if community is to be involved in Kigali: Small group to prepare responses starting 14 May and closing 10 June ( group session Monday, block 3), use the GAP analysis session to report back and seek support ccTLDs present, Council decision Thursday 13 June Alejandra: Istanbul is too far away. Would delay the process too long, and is not necessary. Let’s aim for Kigali. It seems that this is feasible. But the drafting team will know when they start looking at it. Depending on the status, we could still give an update in Kigali, and if needed finish work later. Thanks to Jordan for the proposal to use the policy gap session slot. Nick: can we add some sentences in the next ccnso newsletter? Jordan: in any case it would be difficult to multi-task doing the policy gaps work and doing this work, given the crossover in people involved Alejandra: what is meant? Nick: update that we received questions, small team going through them. Outcomes to be shared with the community in due time. Does not deserve a whole block of time in a meeting Alejandra: so, just a written answer? Nick: yes. Would be a boring session.not useful to go through each question line by line. That would be painful. Stephen: agree. This is really in the weeds. A five minute summary to the community should suffice. Nick: community elects council to deal with such matters. Let’s not make it more painful. Stephen: ok. This is what council has to deal with. Not community. Alejandra: session not only focusing on the questions. But bringing people up to speed regarding the process. Could be educational. Nick: this is so technical and dry. Do this in a written update, and let people think about it. Not fair to ask people to give instant reactions, or temperature of the room Jordan: teasing it out a little more. Verbal update. As we said, we told you this was happening. Answers are lowkey, we will put them in. do you want to know more? Talk to us. That is an option. Agree that the matter is dry. But this is the appeals mechanism for decisions about our TLDs. i am on the fence, but also conflicted. The small team regarding gap analysis. Capacity issues. Nick: cross that the work of the gap analysis work is interrupted by these questions Stephen: that policy is set. The gap review people need to … how do we join forces? What was left out in our policy? Jordan: group working on the answers. It will take time to do this. I share Nick’s frustration, but we all have limited capacity. Not sure how many work we could do on the gap stuff. There is some time on monday in Kigali. Peter: it is my understanding that the collision with the gap work is more a council internal resource competition. Mixing those in front of the ccnso members, would add to the confusion. Should be a separate info to the members. Alejandra: gap analysis people and those who provide response. Overlap. We have not decided yet how to inform the community. Should there be a session on Kigali? Demi: One side point for other opportunities, or Kigali, I think we have to spend some time in topics that may be critical do ccNSO ˜Lebensraum˜, like conceptualizing what would be “DNS abuse” from ccNSO point of view… Peter: we probably need a 3rd option. A dedicated session might be too much, but a slot somewhere would help Green: 5 min update Red: full session Stephen: green. Alejandra: i see green ticks. Alejandra provides a Summary: we have the drafting team, we will inform the community in Kigali. Short update. Council will approved the responses, plus any other info to be shared with the Board Caucus. Bart: we need to ask WG members tomorrow whether they want to join Alejandra: yes. we will circulate a resolution to council mailing list tomorrow. 6. AOB Alejandra: I want to raise the point that to date we have not received an additional response from Nigel, I also note that it is now nearly two months since we had our in person meeting with Katrina, Patricio, Becky, Danko and Jim. I want to suggest that we adjust our response to Katrina and Patricio, specifically the second paragraph with the reference to Nigel to reflect the current state of affairs. If you agree, we will update the letter tomorrow and circulate it for final suggestions and sign-off. Do you agree? Green ticks Ai-Chin: I want to know if, in the future, for example, ccPDP4 encounters a similar situation, should we still follow this approach, and will this procedure become part of the PDP? Finally I want to mention that our response to Tripti on changing recommendation 7 of the Auction proceeds and the Bylaw change is due next week. So please check the text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1suwJWCFQlUrJMOmiFX8CF0sVLbRPyxJClYA1b1Y… 7. Adjourn Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> ICANN80 Links to Bookmark Now * ccNSO Schedule https://community.icann.org/x/GQBkEw * ccNSO Session Highlights https://community.icann.org/x/wYCfEw * Tech Day https://community.icann.org/x/OgBkEw

1 0

REMINDER: extraordinary Council meeting Tuesday 7 May 2024| 20.00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson May 7, 2024

May 7, 2024

Dear Councilors, As a reminder, there will be a special Council meeting today at 20:00 TC. Please review the attached background material and agenda. Call details: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/91395586867?pwd=ejAveDRNUWZhTDhXKzRGMWRoL3RZQT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/91395586867?pwd=ejAveDRN…> Meeting ID: 913 9558 6867 Passcode: .V8X3!m7p4 From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 at 7:27 AM To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Update Draft agenda Council meeting Tuesday 7 May 2024| 20.00 UTC Dear all, Please find included the updated draft agenda. For your reference, please also find included: * Cover note from Katrina to Alejandra, re list of questions * The list of questions * Link to Board Report ( relevant sections: section 2-6 of this Report): https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/board-report-proposed-policy-ccrm-26jun23-… [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ccnso.icann.org/en/about/board-report-pr…> Kind regards, Bart -------- Draft Agenda Extraordinary Council meeting Tuesday 7 May 2024 | 20:00 UTC 1. Welcome 1. Admin matters * Update SoI? * Quorum * Special nature of the meeting 1. Introduction & Background Focus on handling the list of questions, involvement of community and possible timelines. 1. Possible Scenarios to handle the list of questions * No response to questions * Working group reviews questions and suggests responses, to be approved by Council * Council only group: members and non-members of the ccPDP3 RM WG (Councillors who are members of the WG: Stephen, Nick, Peter, Sean), responses to be approved by Council * Combined group of Council and working group members, co-chaired by chair of the WG and Council member suggests responses, to be approved by Council Note: Approval of responses is a Council decision, subject to membership vote if so requested by members. This is not about change of policy, nor supplemental recommendation. 1. Involvement of broader community? * Need to inform and involve ccNSO Membership in process? * Timing involvement ccNSO Membership: i. Kigali (ICANN80, June 2024) ii. Istanbul (ICANN81, November 2024 iii. Intersessional (September 2024?) Note if community is to be involved in Kigali: Small group to prepare responses starting 14 May and closing 10 June ( group session Monday, block 3), use the GAP analysis session to report back and seek support ccTLDs present, Council decision Thursday 13 June 1. AOB 1. Adjourn From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-Council(a)icann.org> Reply to: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 3 May 2024 at 12:47 To: "ccnso-Council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-Council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft agenda Council meeting Tuesday 7 May 2024| 20.00 UTC Dear all, Included draft agenda for the upcoming Council meeting to discuss the letter from Board caucus and how to proceed with the list of questions from the Board Caucus Draft Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Admin matter 3. Introduction & background 4. Possible scenario’s to handle the list of questions 5. Involvement of broader ccTLD community 6. AOB 7. Adjourn Further details will follow Monday On behalf of Alejandra, kind regards Bart

2 1

Join IGLC on 8 May, noon UTC: African Union (AU) Data Policy Framework
by Joke Braeken May 7, 2024

May 7, 2024

Dear IGLC members, All, You are warmly invited to join the next IGLC meeting, held on Wednesday, 8 May at noon UTC. This session aims to inform ccTLDs globally and other interested stakeholders about the African Union Data Policy Framework. IGLC is proud to welcome Ms Sadia Rizvi<https://www.ppmattorneys.co.za/team-members/sadia-rizvi/> as guest speaker, to speak about the African Union Data Policy Framework. Ms Rizvi is an Associate at PPM Attorneys, specialised in information and communications technology law, intellectual property law, media law, data privacy, and compliance. PPM Attorneys – based in Johannesburg, South Africa – is a boutique commercial law firm that provides a wide range of legal services focusing on information and communications technology (ICT), marketing and advertising and infrastructure related to these sectors. The second half of this one-hour session will focus on IGLC actions in relation to the World Summit on the Information Society 20 Year Review (WSIS+20) and IGLC session planning for ICANN80. Agenda * Introduction and welcome by Annaliese Williams (.au) * The African Union Data Policy Framework | Sadia Rizvi (PPM Attorneys) * IGLC and its work plan * NETmundial+10: reflections on importance for ccTLDs * 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20) * Final Q&A and Wrap-up All materials for this session will be posted on the IGLC workspace, including session recordings. See https://community.icann.org/x/iIHcEQ Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/98310419302?pwd=QVlBOGtuSGtyeThINzJkWm0vT3pLUT09 See calendar invite enclosed. Best regards, Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> ICANN80 Links to Bookmark Now * ccNSO Schedule https://community.icann.org/x/GQBkEw * ccNSO Session Highlights https://community.icann.org/x/wYCfEw * Tech Day https://community.icann.org/x/OgBkEw

1 0

April 2024 Council minutes for review
by Kimberly Carlson May 6, 2024

May 6, 2024

Dear Council, Here are the April minutes for review. Thank you, Kim

1 0

REVISED TLD-OPS: next TTX during ICANN 81. We need your opinion!
by Kimberly Carlson May 6, 2024

May 6, 2024

**Sent on behalf of the TLD Ops Standing Committee*** Dear all, At ICANN 66 in Montreal, the TLD-OPS standing committee organized an exercise to simulate a recovery plan following a registry incident. We received lot of very positive feedback from this exercise, and we'd like to thank you for it. Jacques Latour and I are pleased to announce that a new session will take place at ICANN 81 in Istanbul in November. For this new session, we'll be offering several different scenarios, so that you can participate on a topic that suits you best. To best prepare for this exercise with the members of the TLD-OPS committee, we're coming to you today to find out what types of topics might be of interest to you. For example: a DNS DDOS attack, a ransomware attack, a business continuity simulation following an incident, etc. If you have any additional ideas or requests, please let us know by emailing ccNSO-tldops(a)icann.org<mailto:ccNSO-tldops@icann.org>. Our selection committee will then be able to choose the most popular themes. The workshop will take place on Sunday afternoon, November 10. It will be face-to-face only, as it's very complicated to get people to play remotely. To start working on the logistical aspects, can you indicate whether you or some of your colleagues will be present? Please reply before the end of May, so that we can analyze the responses and provide you with a summary at ICANN 80 in Kigali. Best Regards. Jacques Latour and Régis Massé, ccNSO TLD-OPS Standing Committee.

1 0

TLD-OPS: next TTX during ICANN 81. We need your opinion!
by Kimberly Carlson May 6, 2024

May 6, 2024

**Sent on behalf of the TLD Ops Standing Committee*** Dear all, At ICANN 66 in Montreal, the TLD-OPS standing committee organized an exercise to simulate a recovery plan following a registry incident. We received lot of very positive feedback from this exercise, and we'd like to thank you for it. Jacques Latour and I are pleased to announce that a new session will take place at ICANN 82 in Istanbul in November. For this new session, we'll be offering several different scenarios, so that you can participate on a topic that suits you best. To best prepare for this exercise with the members of the TLD-OPS committee, we're coming to you today to find out what types of topics might be of interest to you. For example: a DNS DDOS attack, a ransomware attack, a business continuity simulation following an incident, etc. If you have any additional ideas or requests, please let us know by emailing ccNSO-tldops(a)icann.org<mailto:ccNSO-tldops@icann.org>. Our selection committee will then be able to choose the most popular themes. The workshop will take place on Sunday afternoon, November 10. It will be face-to-face only, as it's very complicated to get people to play remotely. To start working on the logistical aspects, can you indicate whether you or some of your colleagues will be present? Please reply before the end of May, so that we can analyze the responses and provide you with a summary at ICANN 80 in Kigali. Best Regards. Jacques Latour and Régis Massé, ccNSO TLD-OPS Standing Committee.

1 0

Draft letter to chair of ICANN Board re amendment of recommendation 7 CCWG Auction Proceeds and related proposed Bylaw update
by Bart Boswinkel May 6, 2024

May 6, 2024

Dear all, Please find included the link to the draft letter in response to request for reaction on amendment of recommendation 7 of the iCANN bylaws and the related proposed change to Section 4.1 of the ICANN bylaws: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1suwJWCFQlUrJMOmiFX8CF0sVLbRPyxJClYA1b1Y… For your reference the letter from Tripti is also included (as PDF and was circulated to you early March 2024, and discussed on the latest Council call. If you have any comments etc. please include them by Friday 10 May at its latest. The reply is expected by 17 May 2024 The letter is proposed by the drafting team: Alejandra, Tatiana, Olga, Jennifer and Chris. Kind regards, Bart

1 0