- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

FW: CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call
by Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

From: "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> Date: Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 21:21 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Greetings Katrina, Whilst the CCWG has no doubt spent considerable sums on their quest to a final report and recommendation to the Community, rest assured that the auction proceeds are safely tucked away in conservative investment vehicles, although no doubt they have suffered some decline in the preceding couple of months, given the COVID-19 crisis. I trust that Xavier has been taking good care of it all, to the best of his and his advisor’s abilities. Expenses for the CCWG were budgeted in the year to year ICANN budgets. I shudder at the amounts involved however. (Trust me, I worry about ICANN expenses for my WG as well). To answer your first question, I cannot recall now where the discussion went with regards to cost/benefit ratios regarding the three options. I apologize for that. With regards to your second question… I think the way to look at the three proposals is to assess them with regards to your (as Councillors) trust in ICANN. I’ve been interacting with ICANN since it’s inception. The early years were not good, to say the least, and left me with a long standing serious distrust of ICANN on every level. Ten years ago I still had a serious mistrust of the organization. Things began to change with the regular meetings between the ccNSO WG (now SOPC) and ICANN financial at our face to face meetings (and we all owe a huge thanks to Giovanni for his continued leadership here). It took a few years to get through the lingering BS and establish regular, consistent, and understandable reporting from ICANN finance back to our Community. We were leaders amongst the SO/AC’s in demanding this from ICANN org, and we as the ccNSO should take credit for that. My current perception of ICANN, with the ascension of Göran as President and CEO, and Xavier as CFO, is a sea change from the preceding 17 years of my experience with the organization. In my view they have performed admirably and understand the balance between ICANN org and the Empowered Community. Ditto for the current Board of Directors. They seem to “get it” as well. That being said, I believe that Mechanism A is the preferred mechanism. I also believe it’s the cheapest approach. However, I remind my fellow Councillors that their approach to this decision is up to them. Judge your personal comfort level with ICANN, and convey your thoughts to me, either on the list or privately. Best Regards, /Stephen From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 08:57 To: "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake(a)nic.as>, ccnso-council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Hi Stephen, Thank you for the summary! As far as I understand, the CCWG AP has been discussing the possible way forward for several years now and have spent a large chunk of the money – is there any left at all? :) Could you please remind me which of the options was considered by the group as the cheapest and the easiest to implement? Are there any other pluses/minuses of each mechanism you believe should be considered by the Councillors? Thanks, ]{atrina From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC" <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> Date: Friday, 17 April 2020 at 08:35 To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call Greetings, Following on my remarks on today’s teleconference Council call, here are the issues confronting the CCWG Auction Proceeds membership: First, there is the issue of whether the CCWG should recommend to the Board (via the SO/AC Community’s approval) a single Auction proceeds distribution mechanism, or multiple mechanisms. To recap, there are three Mechanisms on the table: 1. Mechanism A: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization. 2. Mechanism B: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit. 3. Mechanism C: A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created which is functionally separate from ICANN org, which would be responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds. Second, there is the issue of solicitation of CCWG membership views with regards to the following approach to the CCWG’s report to the Board: 1. The CCWG should recommend a single mechanism to the ICANN Board 2. The CCWG should recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, leaving it up to the Board to make the final determination 3. The CCWG should recommend all three remaining mechanisms to the ICANN Board And finally 1. No strong view either way. To quote ICANN org CCWG staff with regards to this: As members serve as representatives of the Chartering Organizations, it is particularly important that all members respond to this poll. I do not wish to answer this poll without some input from you, my fellow Councilors. I realize that you have not been keeping yourselves up to speed on the deliberations of the CCWG; thank yourselves for that. I do need your input on how to proceed with respect to answering the survey on behalf of the ccNSO. From the Final Report of the CCWG, I quote the following to you: CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG will finalize this recommendation following its review of public comments and a formal consensus call, but based on the indicative poll results, the CCWG leadership sees a strong direction in favor of mechanism A (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization), followed by mechanism B (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit organization). However, the CCWG leadership notes that a number of members did not participate in the indicative survey so it is possible that the outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, consideration of input received and consultations by the members with their respective appointing organizations. Based on the indicative survey results, the CCWG is expected to recommend that the Board selects a mechanism from the two ultimately top ranked mechanisms by the CCWG, for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As part of its selection process, the ICANN Board is expected to apply the criteria outlined by the CCWG in section 4.5 of this proposed Final Report for which additional internal and/or external input may be required (such as providing a reliable cost estimate). The ICANN Board is expected to share the outcome of its consideration with the CCWG Chartering Organizations and, if deemed necessary, involve the Chartering Organizations and/or CCWG implementation team in any deliberations that would benefit from Chartering Organization and/or CCWG implementation team input. So things remain in flux with respect to what the CCWG will recommend to the Board. This poll is the last opportunity to influence the language of the CCWG’s recommendation to the Board. I do not want to substitute my own views on these two questions in lieu of input from you. As I noted on the call, the deadline for submitting a response is Friday, 24 April. I would therefore appreciate (on the list) any comments that you have about the matters discussed here no later than the end of the day your time, Thursday, 23 April. Thank you in advance for your input to my decision making process. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake .as (American Samoa) Stay safe! Stay healthy! _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

reminder: We seek your input, preparing for a virtual ICANN68 and beyond
by Joke Braeken April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

Dear All, ICANN68 – originally scheduled to be held in June 2020 in Kuala Lumpur – will be held via remote-participation only. To adequately prepare for a virtual ICANN68 and beyond, we seek your input. To ensure first and foremost that the ccNSO meets the needs of the ccTLD community, and secondly, to continue the involvement and contributions by the ccNSO in the overall work of ICANN, your feedback is needed. Please take a moment to complete the survey<https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/planningforICANN68andbeyond>. The survey will close on Monday, 20 April 2020 (23:59 UTC). 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 [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=Dw…> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGa…>

1 0

CCWG Auctionn Proceeds --Followup to my remarks on today's call
by Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

Greetings, Following on my remarks on today’s teleconference Council call, here are the issues confronting the CCWG Auction Proceeds membership: First, there is the issue of whether the CCWG should recommend to the Board (via the SO/AC Community’s approval) a single Auction proceeds distribution mechanism, or multiple mechanisms. To recap, there are three Mechanisms on the table: 1. Mechanism A: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization. 2. Mechanism B: An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit. 3. Mechanism C: A new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created which is functionally separate from ICANN org, which would be responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds. Second, there is the issue of solicitation of CCWG membership views with regards to the following approach to the CCWG’s report to the Board: 1. The CCWG should recommend a single mechanism to the ICANN Board 2. The CCWG should recommend the top two ranked mechanisms to the ICANN Board, leaving it up to the Board to make the final determination 3. The CCWG should recommend all three remaining mechanisms to the ICANN Board And finally 1. No strong view either way. To quote ICANN org CCWG staff with regards to this: As members serve as representatives of the Chartering Organizations, it is particularly important that all members respond to this poll. I do not wish to answer this poll without some input from you, my fellow Councilors. I realize that you have not been keeping yourselves up to speed on the deliberations of the CCWG; thank yourselves for that. I do need your input on how to proceed with respect to answering the survey on behalf of the ccNSO. From the Final Report of the CCWG, I quote the following to you: CCWG Recommendation #1: The CCWG will finalize this recommendation following its review of public comments and a formal consensus call, but based on the indicative poll results, the CCWG leadership sees a strong direction in favor of mechanism A (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization), followed by mechanism B (An internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing non-profit organization). However, the CCWG leadership notes that a number of members did not participate in the indicative survey so it is possible that the outcome could change as a result of further deliberations, consideration of input received and consultations by the members with their respective appointing organizations. Based on the indicative survey results, the CCWG is expected to recommend that the Board selects a mechanism from the two ultimately top ranked mechanisms by the CCWG, for the disbursement of new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As part of its selection process, the ICANN Board is expected to apply the criteria outlined by the CCWG in section 4.5 of this proposed Final Report for which additional internal and/or external input may be required (such as providing a reliable cost estimate). The ICANN Board is expected to share the outcome of its consideration with the CCWG Chartering Organizations and, if deemed necessary, involve the Chartering Organizations and/or CCWG implementation team in any deliberations that would benefit from Chartering Organization and/or CCWG implementation team input. So things remain in flux with respect to what the CCWG will recommend to the Board. This poll is the last opportunity to influence the language of the CCWG’s recommendation to the Board. I do not want to substitute my own views on these two questions in lieu of input from you. As I noted on the call, the deadline for submitting a response is Friday, 24 April. I would therefore appreciate (on the list) any comments that you have about the matters discussed here no later than the end of the day your time, Thursday, 23 April. Thank you in advance for your input to my decision making process. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake .as (American Samoa) Stay safe! Stay healthy!

1 0

REMINDER: ccNSO Council Teleconference | 16 April at 18:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

Dear Councilors, As a friendly reminder, next ccNSO Council teleconference has been scheduled for 16 April at 18:00 UTC. PLEASE NOTE: The Secretariat requests Councilors add (Councilor) to their end of their name when joining. This is necessary to identify the Council for quorum, chat, etc. This also should be considered best practice when attending ICANN-wide meetings/webinars/teleconferences. Example: Stephen Deerhake (Councilor) or for an ICANN-wide meeting: Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Council) Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/541687351 Meeting ID: 541 687 351 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VSeJBw (recording, transcript and background material will be posted as it becomes available) One tap mobile +16699006833,,541687351# US (San Jose) +13462487799,,541687351# US (Houston) Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/aAAP6aGAx If you are unable to attend the call, please let Bart and I know as soon as possible. Best, Kim

3 3

SAVE THE DATE / MARK YOUR CALENDARS: ccPDP on Retirement WG Webinar | Draft Final Report
by Kimberly Carlson April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

SAVE THE DATE / MARK YOUR CALENDARS: ccPDP on Retirement WG Webinar | Draft Final Report The Working Group on the retirement of ccTLDs has completed their substantive work and produced a draft final report. The full report will be published for public comment at the end of April/early May. In preparation, Working Group will conduct two webinars: * ccPDP Retirement Working Group Draft Report Webinar #1 | 23 April 2020 | 21:00 UTC * ccPDP Retirement Working Group Draft Report Webinar #2 | 24 April 2020 | 11:00 UTC Additional information, as well as how to pre-register, will be sent early next week.

1 0

NOTES | ccNSO Council Meeting | 16 April 2020, 18.00 UTC
by Joke Braeken April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Hello everyone, included below, please find the high-level notes from today’s ccNSO Council meeting, held on Thursday, 16 April 2020, 18.00 UTC 1. Welcome and roll call Welcome by ccNSO Council Chair, Katrina Sataki to the ccNSO Council members and others who joined today’s ccNSO Council Meeting. Hope all are well and healthy. Apologies received from Byron Holland. Welcome to Ai-Chin, who joined her first ccNSO Council meeting in her capacity as ccNSO Council Member, from the Asia-Pacific region 2. Minutes & Action Items * Review charters: ongoing * Build knowledge base Council leadership team * Time zone chart ccNSO Council meetings 3. Intermeeting decisions (since 12 March 2020) * Adoption roles and responsibilities: all assigned * Planning for a virtual ICANN68. MPC Chair (Barbara) together with Katrina and Alejandra participated in SO/AC leaders planning meetings. More info to follow during the MPC update by Alejandra, who is the Council liaison to the MPC. 4. ccPDP3 a. Part 1 Retirement – Update ccPDP3-ret WG. Public comment period approaching. By next week there will be a webinar, introducing the public comment period. GAC membership and ccNSO community are welcome to attend. ccPDP Retirement Working Group Draft Report Webinar #1 | 23 April 2020 | 21:00 UTC  ccPDP Retirement Working Group Draft Report Webinar #2 | 24 April 2020 | 11:00 UTC Minimum period for public comments is 40 days. For instance: 2 months post ICANN68 * Part 2 Review Mechanism – Update ccPDP3-rm WG had 2 meetings to date, chaired by Bart in his capacity as issue manager. Next meeting on Wednesday 22 April. * Appointment Chair (Stephen Deerhake, .AS) and vice-chair (Eberhard Lisse, .NA) Move? Alejandra Second? Pablo Questions or comments? None Against? None Abstain? Stephen Approve? All in favour * Appointment Members (Patricio Poblete). Move? Stephen Second? Demi Questions or comments? Stephen said Patricio would be the 3rd Board member on this WG Against? None Abstain? None All in favour Stephen will formally inform Patricio 5. IDN ccTLD related work items (ccPDP4): Progress draft Issue report a. Issue Report * Informational / Decisional pending General Counsel opinion Bart hoped to share the full issue report today. The Office of the General Council is looking at it. Official opinion by GC needs to be included in the issue report. Once available, it will be sent to the ccNSO Council. For adoption either online, or during the next Council meeting * Meeting with GNSO Subpro WG written update Giovanni Seppia: “Following the ICANN Board recommendation to ensure that string similarity is evaluated consistently in the TLD environment, I volunteered to liaise with the gTLD sub working group regarding the string similarity in the next gTLD application round. The communication flow has been miserable and the impression I have been having is that the gTLD sub working group could not care less to ensure a consistent approach for string similarity across the TLD environment. I was invited to attend their last call on 30 March at the very last minute despite previous contacts. From the call it was clear that the gTLDs have completely different views (large part of the discussion was to exclude “plurals” from string similarity and to eventually introduce a more structured appeal process for rejected strings) and will barely take into account the expertise in string similarity evaluation that the ccNSO has gained from the IDN Fast Track. I suggested they look carefully into the work we have done to refine the IDN Fast Track and introduce a scientific methodology to assess string similarity. I will continue to be available to the gTLD sub working group for any further information they may need.” ccNSO Council to await further developments. b. Progress Bylaw Change Informational. Letter from Maarten Botterman, chair of the ICANN Board of Directors. Forwarded today (16 April) by Katrina to council mailing list. 6. ccNSO Board Seat 12 Nomination process Informational: Tentative timeline proposed. Not being approved now, more in depth discussion at the next Council meeting. 6 months prior to the Director taking its seat, we are expected to have completed the process. The Board seat election has to be certified by the ECA no later than 23 April 2021. Taking into account the time needed for Q&A, background checks, voting rounds etc, we need to start earlier. GRC is looking to update the guideline on the nomination process for ICANN Board Seat 11 & 12. Council will be asked to approve the suggested timeline at the next Council meeting. 7. Work Plan discussion: setting ccNSO priorities & strategy Introduction by Katrina: ccNSO priorities from a policy perspective are ccPDP3 and ccPDP4. Other bylaws mandated obligations. Setting the priorities and strategy is work in progress. How do we meet our obligations of the ccNSO being a part of ICANN on the one hand (decisional participant, supporting organisation) and as a global platform for and by ccTLDS on the other hand? Presentation by Bart (slide will be shared after today’s meeting): strategising about ccNSO activities. Pandemic might have a serious impact on the way we live, and how we work within the ccNSO, not only during the next months, but beyond. Starting point: what is the purpose and value of the ccNSO? And for whom? When it was created in 2003, it was a global platform for and by ccTLDs, but it is also a part of ICANN (decisional participant, supporting organisation). Global platform? To distinguish between the regional organisations. Main buckets: * policy (ccPDP3, ccPDP4) and policy-related work (e.g. emoji Study Group, Framework of Interpretation) * Capacity building * Engagement & outreach: how to keep the ccTLD community involved and informed The ccNSO needs: * Resources: Subsets of ccTLDs, members, volunteers, council, staff (ccNSO Secretariat and other ICANN staff that contributes to the work of the ccNSO) * Means: how do we get work done? Transparency & Accountability | Voting, WG committees, communications | webinars, meetings * Tools: workspace, mailing list, website, zoom, etc Mindmap. Priority of work items: food for thought for the ccNSO Council. It is high on the agenda of not only the ccNSO, but also other groups. What are important items? What is urgent? Delivering on the work items? Volunteers (limited in numbers and time), staff, tools. The way in which the ccNSO organises its activities: WG and committees, Council, ccTLD community meetings (limited subset attends: about 50 ccTLDs attend, out of 172 members and out of approx 300 ccTLDs in total. Very focused on in-person meetings.) What are the weaknesses? Limited use of online tools, format of the meetings, leadership groups, participation levels. What are the strengths? Core group of volunteers (weakness at the same time) Important that the Council starts thinking in these terms. Areas for improvement and long-term view of where to take the ccNSO Environmental scan and assumptions, which may or may not impact the ccNSO in the next 2 to 3 years, or even beyond that. E.g. pandemic, changing role of governments, role of ccTLD managers, recession may hit the DNS industry, change of working, climate change may impact travel, etc. What are the threats and opportunities for the ccNSO? To achieve the objectives of the ccNSO? To deliver on the work items? How will we know if the ccNSO still is fit for purpose Katrina: Slide deck will be shared after the meeting. Giovanni suggested adding another question: What should the ccNSO differently? Katrina suggested adding this once we identified the things that do not serve the purpose. Jordan prefers to have the slides prior to the meeting, even at short notice, for future similar circumstances. Nick: periodic reflection is a good practice. Jordan: what feedback would be most helpful? Katrina: any feedback. How to improve, how to do things differently? Bart: from a staff perspective, we hope Councillors start to own this slide deck, this process. The Secretariat can support it, but it should be owned and discussed by the broader Council. Having a discussion, going through the questions, and having some answers is important. It should not be the Chair and Vice Chairs only owning it. Katrina intends also to seek input from the community. Continue the discussion: online, offline. Separate call by the Council, for those interested in shaping the ccNSO Strategy? Bart: suggestion, prior to ICANN68 or around that time, have a Council Workshop on this topic. Dedicated to this topic. Nick: good idea. We could also tick off some of the review actions Katrina: doodle poll to be shared regarding a possible day / time. Not mandatory to participate. 8. Update ECA & CSC a. ECA Membership stable. Quiet period currently Stephen working on a handbook documenting the secretariat function Katrina: there was a review for RSAC (RSAC New Generation): RSAC wants to become a Decisional Participant. This implies also quite some bylaw changes, incl threshold related etc. b. CSC i. Informational PTI met SLA for 100% in March. CSC is waiting for approval to amend SLA’s. See next agenda item ii. Decision to approve change IANA Naming Function SLA Creation-Transfer ccTLDs Move? Pablo Second? Demi Questions or comments? None Against? none Abstain? None All in favour 9. Council updates (Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations, Secretariat) Ongoing discussion: * Priorities. ccNSO priorities from a policy perspective are ccPDP3 and ccPDP4. * Planning for ICANN68 10. WG/Committee Updates a. GRC * Ongoing: Update to Board nomination guideline. Some elements will be presented to Council for discussion. * GRC started working on a guideline (removal of Councillors) * Started discussion on how to simplify guidelines. The guidelines have certain elements in common. i t would be helpful to refer to a document with the basis, without repeating it explicitly in every guideline * b. SOPC (written update Giovanni Seppia, chair SOPC) Sent to council mailing list c. TLD-Ops d. Tech WG e. IGLC Update by Joke. IGLC wishes to meet as part of ICANN68. IGLC is preparing a repository of IG topics relevant to ccTLD managers, as included in ICANN68 agenda. Willing to contribute to a session on the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on ccTLD managers, focusing on the topic of capacity building f. MPC Update by Alejandra. Waiting for block schedule by planning team (time, session hours, timezone) Cross- community plenary: proposed fix slot between noon and 4 pm Kuala Lumpur time Feedback from the community is helpful. To participate in the survey, go to https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/planningforICANN68andbeyond g. CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds How to structure the approval process Final Report? The CCWG Auction Proceeds is on the brink of finalizing its Final Report and submitting it to the Chartering Organisations to seek support for its recommendations. According to the Charter of the CCWG Auction Proceeds the ccNSO as one of the Chartering Organisations will therefore be asked whether the ccNSO supports the CCWG Auction Proceeds recommendations. Given the virtual nature of ICANN68 for discussion how does the ccNSO Council want to structure the decision making process? Options: 1. ccNSO Council decision, highlighting the rules of the ccNSO 2. Consultation of ccTLD community (temperature of the room, poling of webinar attendees) followed by decision of ccNSO Council 3. Survey of ccTLD managers 4. Abstain/no decision. 5. Other procedure CCWG AP leadership team is available to hold a webinar for the chartering organisations. 11. Update liaisons a. Update ALAC Liaison (written update) Shared on council mailing list ahead of the meeting today b. Update GNSO Liaison (written update) 12. Meetings a. Update, if any ICANN68 Feedback from the community on how to best shape a virtual ICANN68 is helpful. To participate in the survey, go to https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/planningforICANN68andbeyond b. Rotation Council meetings Background material: email exchanges Table with council timezones: We chose the most slots marked in green, the least in red. To avoid the need to council calls, since the quorum is not met. Quorum is needed when making decisions. Currently: 12 UTC and 18 UTC. Table shown in winter time. Alejandra proposed to rate between 12 UTC, 18 UTC and 21 UTC. Meeting time suggestion : 12:00 UTC - 1 red  18:00 UTC - 3 red  12:00 UTC - 1 red  21:00 UTC - 3 red  start over  12:00 UTC - 1 red  18:00 UTC - 3 red  12:00 UTC - 1 red  21:00 UTC - 3 red Stephen: The RM WG is favoring an 8 hr meeting rotation, rather than the 6h that the Retirement WG uses.  Jordan: I would support a three- or a four-meeting cycle, either a rotation between the three times, or the method that Alejandra has proposed. Either option is better for me than the current 12/18 cycle No objections to Alejandra’s proposal. Thanks to Ai-Chin for whom 18 UTC is inconvenient (2 am her time). c. Next Meeting schedule · 21 May 2020 – 12:00 UTC · June @ICANN68 (Virtual) · 20 August 2020 · 17 September 2020 · October @ICANN69 · 19 November 2020 · 17 December 2020 Cycle as proposed by Alejandra (12 UTC, 18 UTC, 12 UTC, 21 UTC) 13. AOB 14. Closure Thank you. Bye all. Please stay safe and healthy. 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

Survey seeking input on future virtual ccNSO members meetings
by Alejandra Reynoso April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Dear All To participate in the survey, go to https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/planningforICANN68andbeyond Please note that it will close on *next Monday*, 20 April 2020 (23:59 UTC). Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso(a)cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-42 Zona 15, V.H. III. Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt

1 0

NEXT: ccNSO Council teleconference | 16 April at 18:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

**STARTING IN 25 MINUTES*** Dear Councilors, The next ccNSO Council teleconference has been scheduled for 16 April at 18:00 UTC. PLEASE NOTE: The Secretariat requests Councilors add (Councilor) to their end of their name when joining. This is necessary to identify the Council for quorum, chat, etc. This also should be considered best practice when attending ICANN-wide meetings/webinars/teleconferences. Example: Stephen Deerhake (Councilor) or for an ICANN-wide meeting: Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Council) Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/541687351 Meeting ID: 541 687 351 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VSeJBw (recording, transcript and background material will be posted as it becomes available) One tap mobile +16699006833,,541687351# US (San Jose) +13462487799,,541687351# US (Houston) Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/aAAP6aGAx An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Best, Kim

1 0

FW: [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Katrina Sataki, ccNSO
by Katrina Sataki April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

FYI From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 14 April 2020 at 20:30 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Katrina Sataki, ccNSO Dear Katrina Sataki, Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman in response to your letter of 7 February 2020. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Senior Manager 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094

1 0

16 April 2020
by ICANN Community Leadership Digest April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Thursday, 16 April 2020 ICANN Community Leadership Digest The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates. Table of Contents Information Sharing REMINDER: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update NEW: Registrant Course on ICANN Learn REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for ICANN’s Independent Review Process ICANN68 Planning NEW: ICANN68 Publication Support Public Comment CLOSES MONDAY: Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules CLOSES NEXT WEEK: Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team – Phase 2 Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules (LGRs) for the Second Level Version 2 NEW: ICANN Africa Regional Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Information Sharing REMINDER: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update Executive: Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO Since Public Interest Registry (PIR) formally notified ICANN of the proposed change of control transaction on 14 November 2019, the ICANN org and Board have worked together to thoughtfully and thoroughly evaluate the proposed acquisition to ensure that the .ORG registry remains secure, reliable, and stable. Throughout this process, ICANN has urged PIR, the Internet Society (ISOC), and Ethos Capital (Ethos) to engage and consult with the .ORG community, and to provide full transparency regarding the proposed transaction. Today, ICANN is publishing PIR's recently updated Public Interest Commitments (PICs), which were received by ICANN on 7 April 2020. PIR proposes that these PICs be added to the .ORG Registry Agreement should ICANN approve the change of control request submitted by PIR. Two versions of the PICs are being published: a "clean" version and a "redline" version that shows changes made by PIR from its 16 March 2020 version submitted to ICANN following PIR's Public Engagement process. The revised PICs that ICANN is publishing today are in response to additional questions posed by ICANN as part of its diligence around the change of control request. On 3 April 2020, ICANN provided PIR with two sets of questions. One set of questions are in follow-up to previous ICANN inquiries designed to further understand the proposed transaction and its potential effect on PIR and the .ORG top-level domain (TLD). The second set of questions relate specifically to the proposed PICs. PIR has indicated that it is working to answer all of the questions from ICANN. It is ICANN's intention to post PIR's responses to these questions when they are available, subject to any appropriate requests for confidentiality made by PIR. Many people have questioned the enforceability of PICs by ICANN. To be clear, PICs are enforceable by ICANN. Any Internet user may submit complaints to ICANN Contractual Compliance. In addition, ICANN Contractual Compliance may identify an issue through its proactive monitoring. ICANN's follow-up questions to PIR seek to ensure that ICANN has a clear understanding of each commitment within the PICs, such that it could be enforced should the need arise. The ICANN Board continues to have reservations regarding the enforceability of PIR's proposed PICs. The .ORG Registry Agreement stipulates a specified time period for ICANN to approve or withhold consent of the proposed change of control of PIR. ICANN and PIR have agreed to extend the deadline several times since the original deadline in mid-January, and the deadline for ICANN's response is now Monday, 20 April 2020. Similar to when voluntary commitments in the form of PICs were proposed by applicants for new generic TLDs, ICANN is providing PIR's proposed PICs to the ICANN community with this public notice. Given the fast-approaching deadline for ICANN to make a decision to approve or withhold consent on the requested change of control of PIR, the typical 30-day public notice period has been condensed to seven days. We recognize the full engagement of the .ORG community in PIR's consultation process, but wanted to ensure ICANN remained fully transparent in what is being considered, the concerns still present in the Board's review, and what the Board will be reviewing. How to Participate: Feedback may be submitted as a comment to this blog or through correspondence to me or the ICANN Board. We thank the ICANN community for its active participation in this matter and remain committed to keeping you informed of new developments. NEW: Registrant Course on ICANN Learn Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement ICANN org has published a new course for registrants that aims to educate registrants and the end user community on a registrant's rights and responsibilities, and their role in the domain name ecosystem. Register for the course. REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for ICANN’s Independent Review Process Announcement On 31 March 2020, ICANN opened a call for Expressions of Interest for panelists to serve on the omnibus Standing Panel for ICANN's Independent Review Process (IRP). Candidates for the IRP omnibus Standing Panel should review the Expressions of Interest document before submission. The document includes the following information: Panel Position Description Required or Highly Preferred Skills Required or Highly Preferred Experience Time Commitment Compensation and Selection Expressions of Interest should be submitted to irp-standingpanel-eoi2020(a)icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 31 July 2020. ICANN68 Planning NEW: ICANN68 Publication Support Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support Design and Translation Deadline If you require design assistance for your publication, you need to provide all the text, images, layout, and publication type/size requirements (i.e. newsletter vs. 1-pager vs. trifold, etc.). You will receive a maximum of 2 iterations of the publication. Please provide everything by Wednesday, 13 May 2020. Please keep in mind that all materials, new or updated, need to be evergreen. Translation-only Deadline If your publication requires translation, please provide the final material(s) by Monday, 25 May 2020. This ensures that there is enough time to translate the publication by the below print deadline. If your materials require design assistance (outlined above), please note that the final materials will have to be complete, including the edit/approval process, by this deadline in order to be translated. Please work directly with your support staff to submit these requests to chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org and liana.teo(a)icann.org. Public Comment CLOSES MONDAY: Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules Close Date: Monday, 20 April 2020 CLOSES NEXT WEEK: Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules Close Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Close Date: Monday, 27 April 2020 Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team – Phase 2 Close Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020 Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules (LGRs) for the Second Level Version 2 Close Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2020 NEW: ICANN Africa Regional Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Close Date: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 Volume 2, Issue 31 | Archive | Next Issue: Monday, 20 April 2020 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe ccnso-council(a)icann.org Update Profile | About Constant Contact Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org in collaboration with Try email marketing for free today!

1 0