- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

REMINDER - Call for presentations Marrakech meeting
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear all, This is a reminder that we are currently looking for presentations for the ccNSO meeting in Marrakech. We are looking for presentations suitable for our traditional ccTLD News, Marketing and Legal sessions. If you think you could contribute to any of these sessions, please, fill in this form: Exact title of presentation: Name of presenter: Short summary of presentation (2-3 sentences): Estimated time needed: This information is crucial for our Programme Working Group, in order to be able to plan the sessions. The summary will also be published online prior to the meeting, so that all participants can read and know what to expect. Depending on the amount of proposals, the Programme Working Group can't always guarantee a slot to all volunteers, but will have to make a selection. The summary will also be helpful in this selection process. Please, can I have your suggestions by Monday, 11 January 2016. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

ccNSO Council Call - February
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

The February Council call will take place on 18 February 2016 @12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/

2 1

ccNSO Council Call - January
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

The January Council call will take place on 21 January 2016 @12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/

1 0

FW: [Cctldworld] TR: Joint CCWG-Accountability member input to the ccNSO Council
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear all, Included statement is forwarded at request and on behalf of Eberhard, Kind regards, Bart On 15/12/15 08:27, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: >Dear Colleagues, > >I am writing to you because of: > > 1) Calling the below a "Joint Statement of the ccNSO > Appointed Members to the CCWG" is *FALSE*; and > > 2) I do not agree with its content; > >for the following reasons: > > >1) There are 5 members appointed to the CCWG Accountability, and not >4, as falsely stated below, namely (in alphabetical order): > > Jordan Carter (.NZ) > Eberhard Lisse (.NA) > Roelof Meijer (.NL) > Giovanni Seppia (.EU) > Mathieu Weill (.FR) (co-chair) > >I (one of the 5 appointed members) have not been (made) aware of any >proposal to draft such a "Joint Statement" by the other (4) ccNSO >appointed members and hence could not assist in drafting it and/or >attaching a Minority Opinion to it. > >So, this attempt at deceiving the ccTLD community is either >deliberate or further proof of the amateurishness that has marred >the CCWG process. > >In the spirit of accountability and transparency Council must: > > a) obtain and publish a comprehensive explanation from the > author(s); and > > b) obtain and publish all pertinent (email) correspondence > in this regards. > > >2) It goes without saying that I do not agree with the below >deceptions: > >The Third Draft Proposal by the CCWG Accountability ("Third Draft") >is extremely complex, albeit unfinished, obfuscated, and is gNSO >centric, never mind that it was produced in haste by way of >arbitrary, self imposed milestones and deadlines. > >I addition to my own objection to the Third Draft, to which I added >a Minority Opinion (a copy of which is enclosed for ease of >reference), even one of the gNSO appointed members (Ms Gross) has >objected to the Proposal. > > So whether there is even Consensus within the CCWG > Accountability is highly debatable. > >It is not clear at all whether the Third Draft (in particular when >viewed together with the CWG Proposal) is in fact workable. > >And asking the community to sign off on an UNFINISHED product makes >no sense. Never mind without sufficient time to consider. > >Human Rights Provisions have been so watered down as to be >meaningless. > >There is nothing discernible in the Third Draft for ccTLD Managers >in particular no enhancement of safeguards. In fact it could even >be understood to increase ICANN's powers over ccTLD Managers >(especially those who are not ccNSO members) > >Most of the ccNSO "guidelines" produced in Dublin are not relevant >to ccTLD Managers. > >I remain concerned about the elevation of ACs to the level of the >SOs. > > Where this can lead to was evident during the deliberations > of the CCWG Accountability, when the appointed ALAC members > reneged on their previous Consensus with regards to the > enforcement model in favor of the one currently proposed. > >An increase of the threshold from currently 1/2 to 2/3 of Board >members to reject (Consensus) GAC advice does not provide any >guaranties against anything. > > In fact, it increases risk significantly, when viewed in > combination with this Third Draft's also opening the door to > the GAC to water down their definition of Consensus, > >It has come to my attention today that the Board has issued politely >worded but shockingly strong warning of some 27 pages that it >considers this Third Draft unfinished. > > Though I find myself in disagreement with some of the > rationale given by the Board, I am relieved to note that > they consider the Public Interest is better served by > "geting it right" than by "getting something done, now". > > >I also share their concern that entities not involved with IANA >would be in a position to affect the IANA budget. > > >I view the IANA transition and its corresponding issues to be of >such importance that I do not believe there is a place for ccNSO >Council to take this important decision by itself. > >At the very least this should be taken by the ccNSO Members, best by >way of formal Policy Development Processes imitated within the ccNSO >once the CCWG Accountability will have completed Work Streams 1 and >2, respectively. > > >In any case, I urge ccTLD Managers (and the ccNSO Council) to reject >this (premature) Third Draft, so the CCWG Accountability can go back >and do this right. > > > >Dear Staff, please ensure that *ALL* Council members, even these who >are not allowed to subscribe to ccNSO lists, get a copy of this, as >I can't post to the Council list. > >greetings, el > >On 2015-12-11 13:57 , Mathieu Weill wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Please find below a statement sent by ccNSO-appointed members of the >> CCWG-Accountability. The statement reports on consistency between the >> CCWG-Accountability Draft Report and recommends that the ccNSO Council >> endorses these proposals. >> >> >> >> You can find the English and translated versions of the proposals here : >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016) >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Mathieu Weill >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Roelof Meijer >> >> Giovanni Seppia >> >> >> >> *De :*Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] >> *Envoyé :* vendredi 11 décembre 2015 12:52 >> *À :* Byron Holland (byron.holland(a)cira.ca) >> *Cc :* 'Bart Boswinkel'; (jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz) >> Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl; 'Giovanni Seppia' >> *Objet :* Joint CCWG-Accountability member input to the ccNSO Council >> >> >> >> Dear Byron, >> >> >> >> As members of the CCWG-Accountability working group appointed by the >> ccNSO we would like to thank all those who tirelessly participated in >> the process and congratulate the working group for the third proposal >> that takes into due account the recent feedback from many stakeholders. >> We are pleased to submit the following statement to support the >> recommendations published by the CCWG on 30 November 2015. >> >> >> >> We believe that the recommendations: >> >> - Ensure adequate enhancements to ICANN¹s accountability in light of the >> IANA Stewardship transition; >> >> - Meet the CWG dependencies; >> >> - Take the ccTLD interests into due account within the ICANN framework >> and follow the principle of non-interference into ccTLD management from >> ICANN; >> >> - Enhance the safeguard measures available to ccTLD managers in case of >> misconduct on behalf of ICANN. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, the recommendations are fully consistent with the >> guidelines produced at the end of the Dublin ccNSO meeting. >>Specifically: >> >> - The need for community dialogue in the exercise of the community >> powers to be embedded in several steps of the escalation process that >> lead to the exercise of such powers; >> >> - The Sole Designator model is the current reference model for >>enforcement; >> >> - The compromise approach for the removal of SO/AC appointed ICANN Board >> directors is in line with the discussions held during the ICANN meeting >> in Dublin in October 2015; >> >> - A caretaker budget is envisaged to address the concerns about the >> possible adverse effects of a one-year budget veto (PTI budget is still >> a separate process); >> >> - The exclusion of ccTLD delegations and revocations from the scope of >> the IRP is maintained; >> >> - The mission and core values are being refined and a way forward was >> found to accommodate the concerns expressed by the IAB; >> >> - Human rights provisions will be added to the Bylaws and a Framework of >> Interpretation will be developed shortly; >> >> - An exception to the community right to veto a Bylaw change is carved >> out to address the concerns raised in Dublin. Therefore, PDP-based Bylaw >> changes will not be subject to community veto; >> >> - The balance regarding the consideration of any GAC advice by the ICANN >> Board provides guarantees against the perceived risk associated with a >> change in the GAC decision-making process. >> >> >> >> While some of us have specific concerns such as the endorsement of the >> CCWG proposals by the GAC with regard to GAC advice, in particular the >> condition that only full consensus advice needs a 2/3 vote in favour for >> the Board to reject or the exception to the community right to veto a >> Bylaw change if that Bylaw change is PDP-based we would like to >> recommend that the ccNSO Council endorses the CCWG recommendations. >> >> >> >> Mathieu Weill, co-chair >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Roelof Meijer >> >> Giovanni Seppia >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cctldworld mailing list >> Cctldworld(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld >>

1 0

FW: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Forwarded at request and on behalf of Eberhard, Kind regards, Bart From: <cctldworld-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse(a)gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday 16 December 2015 07:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, Michael Silber <mike.silber(a)icann.org<mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>>, "ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, "cctldworld(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>" <cctldworld(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal It's a bloody mess, cobbled together dominated by the representatives of the parties to gain most, in a process that defies comprehension, never mind the impression you are trying to create, at best a work in progress, so obfuscated that you need a Ph.D. to understand it, and as evident from the mailing list, not even understood by the authors. There is only one thing in life I hate more than having to agree with Herr Professor Dr (Milton) Mueller on something and that's having to agree with the Board... ...on anything... ...in principle. And now both happens at the same time? Dear Staff, if this does not go through to the Council list, please make sure that those Council,Members not allowed to subscribe to ccNSO lists also get it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 16 Dec 2015, at 05:44, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi all, hi Mike: On 15 December 2015 at 21:02, Mike Silber <silber.mike(a)gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike@gmail.com>> wrote: Chris +1 On 15/12/2015 08:55, Chris Disspain wrote: Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? My preference is the latter. Personally, I support your preference. It strikes me as strange that we are ignoring a third option: get the critical issues done right and done now and get the less-critical (non-critical?) done right but not done now. Unfortunately it seems to me that each CCWG participant has been allowed to have their own definition of what is critical and has horse traded with others to arrive at this omnibus situation. Mike I have to assume that this comment comes from the fact you haven't engaged all through the CCWG's process. Many people's preferences have been pushed to WorkStream 2 or taken out of the script. The WS1 proposals are the minimum set that the CCWG (a group of 160+ people from across and beyond the ICANN community) believes are required to allow the IANA stewardship transition to occur. It is unfortunate that you and others continue to assert that there is some sort of "grab bag" going on. In other words: the current set of recommendations *does* represent "the critical issues". It's a coherent, limited set of changes - about as far from an "omnibus" as can be imagined. I'd encourage all of us to display some confidence in the multistakeholder process we're all engaged with, and specifically that words which rightly or wrongly can be read as suggesting a lack of such confidence, or a rubbishing of the quality or integrity of its outputs, be avoided? best Jordan

1 0

Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Chris Disspain Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Hello All, You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached. I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments. Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d>), there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test. I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests. I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

3 3

Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Mike Silber Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Hi Jordan It is nice to be back on the same page with you! On 15/12/2015 08:35, "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > Fixing this now, of course, creates substantial delays. Unless we can agree > that it would be adjusted in WS2. I disagree. The report current indicates different processes. I think language needs to be inserted that confirms the key difference is that the IANA budget veto process will focus primarily on the IANA customers. That would suffice for me. Mike

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Mike Silber Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Thank you Martin On 15/12/2015 09:53, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.uk> wrote: > However, I do think that grounds for rejecting an IANA budget need to be > clarified. But I also think that this is one of those details that could be > recognised in principle in the proposal and the full details are then > implementation in the bylaws. I am in complete agreement. I think that some simple language to that effect could resolve this specific issue entirely and there are a number of other examples where some some language changes or acknowledgements of principles to be included in by-laws drafting can speedily resolve the concerns. My concern is the vehement refusal to consider (IMO at least) perfectly valid and constructive concerns and find ways to resolve them. Instead being faced with an approach that almost seems to claim divine inspiration for the text and rejects any attempt to improve it. Regards Mike

1 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Chris Disspain Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Hi Jordan, > Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? I don’t speak for the Board but I can say that I believe that the Board’s view is reflected in my note to the ccTLD lists which has been copied now to the CCWG list in my response to Milton. To quote therefrom: "I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance,…" > Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? > > My preference is the latter. Personally, I support your preference. Cheers, Chris > On 15 Dec 2015, at 17:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > First off, I would like staff to make sure this reply goes to the whole of the lists involved. > > On the main point, see in line below: > > On 15 December 2015 at 04:35, Mike Silber <mike.silber(a)icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>> wrote: > Let me add a very emphatic +1 to Chris’ comments and let me join him in his offer to engage. > > I would also like to offer one example of a place where Chris and I were very concerned: the veto rights in respect of the IANA (or what will be post-transition IANA) budget: > The CCWG report gave the empowered community the power to veto the IANA functions budget (see paragraph 149 on page 28). > Now this concerns me as someone from the ccTLD world, as it seems there would be a veto exercisable by parties who are not IANA customers, over the IANA budget – potentially impacting the services IANA customers can expect. (For example – money needs to be spent on IANA improvements. The operational communities approve it. However non-operational communities believe that money should rather be spent on an extra meeting, or more travel support.) > I was somewhat soothed by the suggestion (at 151) of two distinct processes. > However I examine the detailed annex (annex 2) and cannot find any difference in the process between rejecting the ICANN budget and rejecting the IANA budget. > I suspect this is purely an oversight and has no more sinister motivation – but right now this puts the IANA budget partly in the hands of parties who are not IANA customers and I think that is not appropriate. > > I tried to raise this matter in the course of discussions about the use of this power. It seemed to me logical that the customer groups should decide re any IANA veto. But this idea got no traction. > > Fixing this now, of course, creates substantial delays. Unless we can agree that it would be adjusted in WS2. > > > More broadly, Mike and Chris, can you untangle a confusion for me? > > ICANN has been pushing very hard to get this transition done and dusted. > > We in the CCWG leadership were told very emphatically that delays beyond late December would destroy the prospects of getting it done before September 2016. > > Both at LA and now with this comment, much less aggressively this time, the Board comments introduce delays into the process. > > Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? > > My preference is the latter. > > I have been prepared to go along with the former. > > > Can you help tease this out? > > Many thanks > Jordan > > I am of the view that this oversight can be resolved quite easily and the Board has made some suggestions how to do this. You may or may not agree with the exact suggestions – but I think you will all agree that this situation causes concern. > I would really encourage you to review the board comments and test your reaction: > You do not agree with the comment at all; > You agree with the comment and the possible solution; or > You agree with the comment but have a better / alternate solution. > Please do this as soon as possible and let the CCWG have your reaction. > > Regards > > Mike > > On 14/12/2015 12:57, "Chris Disspain" <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> on behalf of ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: > > Hello All, > > You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached. > > I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. > > I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. > > In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments. > > Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. > > In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d>), there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test. > > I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. > > I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests. > > I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. > > Cheers, > > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > > .au Domain Administration Ltd > > T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> > > auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/> > > A better world through a better Internet >

1 0

Notes AC room Council call 10 December 2015
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear all Please find included the (informal) notes from yesterdays Council call Kind regards, Bart ——————————————— Council Call - 10 December 2015 @12:00 UTC Agenda: 1 Welcome & roll call Apologies: 1. Leonid Todorov 2. Peter Van Roste 3. Celia Lerman-FriedmanNote: Young-Eum Lee will be audio listen only No quorum at start re-arrange until quorum has been reached In Workshop talk about attnedance, atendance will be made more vissible 2) Minutes and Actions Minutes have been circulated to the list, no comments received No comments All actions are completed Confirmed 3) Stewardship Transition and Accountability Processes 4. 3.1 CWG Stewardship 5. Letter from co-chairs on seeking confirmationMartin has joined to provide CWG Stewardship to continue on. 6. uncontroversial. ICG scope preclude it from particpating. Kicked back to CWG. Any other comments Becky mover, Katrina seconds Unanimously approved Membership of CWG Staffan has left .se and has left CWG. Lise will leave .dk, but offers to stay on. paricipation by others, with exception of Paul Kane has been thin, Repalcement Staffan Continuation of Lise Other members Objection to Lise continuing Lesley: No obejection, Lise dedicated. We should call put out a callfor volunteers for others Keith + 1, for Lise, may need other set of skills. However possible less commitment. Nigel, possible replacement Lise. Need for continuation. but also potential need Additional volunteers, needed Combined call of volunteers, as soon as possible. Action for staff Chair and vice-chairs refine set of skills to 7. 3.2 Update CCWG Accountablity 8. Changes to Bylaws resulting from a PDP, coul dnot be rejected unless supported by the SO PDP ( ccNSO PDP, GNSO PDP, ASO PDP) 9. Sole Designator included 10. Carolina: On behalf of Peter van Roste, how to channe;l input RO, how could RO porvide input to Council 11. Response: ccNSO has not taken on responsibility to act as receiver of input. Some RO are working on formal statements, putting it forward to the CCWG. 12. co-chairs from CCWG assured the ccNSO Council will aggregate comments before the 23rd meeting. 13. Stephan: Read transcript Board and Co-chairs. Board is expression concerns. Council should be aware. Potentially LA blow-up 14. Response Becky: Hopeful it is not needed, but CCWG and council should be prepared it may come to potential blow-up. Risk around timeline. 15. Nigel: First time hearing Board is hearing about Humar Rights. The langauge eventually decided on, should respect HR, but has to do nothing about it. 16. Response Becky: In principle not in position to speak on behalf of Board, Understanding is that complaints could be filed over PDP, becasue HR were not taking into account. 17. Sense is that ICANN has no formal role in affirming Human Rights. 18. General: Lack of clarity at thsi stage, however topic on the radar of Council. 19. In narrow technical interpretation from a ccTLDs, proposal addressed needs over time. 20. Next important milestone: 14/15 December Board comment expected. 21. Other comments: 22. 3.3 Preparation Decison-making process on CWG and CCWG proposals 23. Timeline in package as per discussion on 6 November 24. Updates from Becky and Mathieu 25. Feed-back CCWG members, 4 in support, 1 one member minority position. 26. 27. 3.4 Consideration additional stepsAny aditional steps required? Lesley: The points still stands. Wording was a little light in its conclusion. 4) Internet Governance 5) FOI implementation update (Keith) Becky and Keith have been in touch with IANA staff Keith: Steady progress by IANA. By end of the year document on implementation to community One issue needs more clarification. Issue: in FOI report, IANA should not contact admin contact. There should be a more specific procedure in case of revocation. Question from IANA, how should this process look like. Need for clarification on such process. Question could you think how such a precess should look like in your specific case. Sense by Becky, Keith differen options needed. Nigel: question IANA has rasied, very good one. Also notes the process, good faith of IANA, also acceptance of principel of subsidiarity. Also relavant in context of consent Other questions 6) Upcoming PDP’s Upcoming PDP Action Staff map out process fro a next council regiualr meeting on retirement and IRP 7) ccNSO Council Elections Congratualtions to Keith: Moves Katrina Seconds Unanimously adopted Nigel: Worth to address issues for future elections Moderator of Q& A in Dublin. One candidate, whose nomination period was not closed. Katrina: Agrees, at the same time deadline for LAC was extended and overlapped. GRC will look into it. Election Manager was not present. Issue for GRC 8) Council Updates 28. 8.1 Chair Update 29. 8.2 Vice-Chair Update 30. 8.3 Councilors Update 31. 8.4 Regional Organizations Update 32. 8.5 Staff UpdateNo Updates 9) WG updates 33. 9.1 GRC (Guideline review committee) update: Ask Katrina 34. Productive call, moving forward quickluy. Wiki space now operational. 35. 9.2 CCWG Updates 36. - Use of country and territory names: Written update to be provided 37. Written update provided 38. 9.3 Program WG update: Ask Katrina 39. Katrina: First pre Marrakesh meeting next week. Enought time for Transition. Already intereseting presentation on the table. 40. Note it is the first of the new format meetings10) Liaison Updates Written updates 10.1 GNSO Liaison (Patrick Myles). 10.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood), included 11) Work plan To be updated for thsi meeting 12) Date of Next Meetings • 23 December 2015, noon UTC (Note the summary by CCWG itself and Board comments) • 21 January 2016, noon UTC • 18 February 2016, noon UTC 13) AOB No AOB 14) Adjourn Adjourned at 14.18

1 0