- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Please confirm your attendance - Council call 24 September
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

Dear all, As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC - details below. We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance. If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.

7 10

Complete set of questions from ICG to CWG-IANA
by Keith Davidson Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

Apologies for length of message and multiple postings... The following is the complete set of questions / clarifications sought by the ICG from the CWG-IANA, primarily on the Names Proposal. Cheers Keith --------------------- RZM 1) Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal. 2) The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR].” Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "functions" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation.” The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. ccTLDs 3) We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment. 4) The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether Part 1 of the combined proposal could be adapted accordingly. If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined proposal. 5) We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. PTI 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. 8) Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about the boardâs powers and another one about which members get selected to the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase. Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: âAs a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â However, from the underlying legal expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. Weâd like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing âandâ with âwhoâ as follows: âAs a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â 9) Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.â Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point. Scope 10) The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions. Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 11) Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 12) Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes. <end>

1 0

Update CCWG Country and territory names
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the written update from the ccNSO appointed co-chairs of the CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names, Annebeth Lange and Paul Szyndler Kind regards, Bart ---------------- Update on Cross-Community Working Group on Country and Territory Names At ICANN Buenos Aires, the C&TN Working Group concluded its initial deliberations on the first significant element of its work - the current and future use of two-letter codes as TLDs. Although all elements of the group's work are subject to ongoing revision until it delivers a Final Report, there was a pleasing level of preliminary agreement on maintaining the status quo. That is, 2-letter codes should be reserved for current, and possibly future, ccTLDs, according the ISO3166 list. This preliminary outcome was based not only on the WG's discussions, but also the feedback received from the community in response to a questionnaire issued by the group. The WG also provided updates to the GAC and other community stakeholders, in order to minimise confusion between our work and other initiatives relating to geographic terms. In order to maintain the momentum of its work, the WG has convened a regular schedule of (approximately fortnightly) teleconferences since Buenos Aires. In early August, the WG released a second questionnaire, addressing the use of 3-letter codes as TLDs. It was transmitted to Chairs of all SOs and ACs. The use of 3-letter codes as TLDs (and implications for country names) is a far more complicated issue than 2-letter codes. The WG expects to release both an explanatory note on historical uses of these codes, and an updated overall progress report, in advance of the Dublin meeting. The group will also focus on a preliminary discussion of 3-letter code use at that meeting. As a procedural aside, it is useful for Council to note that the "questionnaire" style of consultation of the WG has been only moderately successful. Although the WG is not formally issuing a "call for public comment" at each stage of its work, it is attempting to be as consultative as possible. However, these consultations have been slowed considerably by the differing engagement and approval processes of each SO and AC - which are only calibrated to cope with slower, formal consultation processes.

2 1

Chat notes and recording - ccNSO Council Call 24 September
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, Here is the recording from today's Council Call: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-24sep15-en.mp3 A copy of the chat notes can be found below. Kind regards, Kim Carlson Kimberly Carlson:Hello, and welcome to today's Council Call Ron Sherwood:Good morning, Kimberly Kimberly Carlson:Good morning Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hi Kim Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hello Ron Maureen Hilyard:Good morning all Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Morning Maureen soule:Good morning all Jordi Iparraguirre:hello! soule:hello barrack Kimberly Carlson:Peter, glad you could join after all Peter Van Roste:Hi EVeryone! I won't be able to speak, but will use the chat when relevant. 5258:hello, acnnot hear anoyone... 5258:that's leonid Kristina Nordstrom:Hi Leonid, did you lose audio on adobe connect or on the phone line? 5258:adobe Lesley:Good afternoon everyone Kristina Nordstrom:It is working for me. Please try to close AC and restart Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hello Soule Kristina Nordstrom:Hi Lesley! 5258:this is leonid. I am fine now.. Kristina Nordstrom:Super Celia Lerman:Hi to everyone young-eum:Hi. apoligies for joining late young-eum:I just e-mailed my report to the council list young-eum:I don't have audio access yet abibu (.tz):Hi all, sorry for being late. soule:hello abibu young-eum:I now have audio access. Keith:Hi all - even though I apologiswd, I am in here for a few minutes margarita:bello margarita:hello Peter Van Roste:NTIA has a funny way of sharing an opinion while underlining that they won't comment... Lesley:I have also encouraged people Peter Van Roste:No updates from CENTR. Thanks. Barrack Otieno AfTLD:No updates from AfTLD Lesley:thanks all! young-eum:Thanks everyone! abibu (.tz):thank u all. Jordi Iparraguirre:thank you, bye! soule:thanks all Ron Sherwood:Thank you all, Bye Katrina Sataki:thank you! bye! soule:bye soule:aurevoir Byron:Bye all, see you in dublin Leonid:Bye!

1 0

Notes taken during the ccNSO Council meeting 24 September 2015
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

ccNSO Council Meeting - 24 September @12:00 UTC Agenda 1) Apologies 2) Minutes and Actions All actions are completed 3) Internet Governance 4) Update Stewardship Transition and Accountability Processes 5) WG EPSRP 6) TLD-Ops Oversight Committee: Appointment of volunteers 7) Appointment NomCom 8) ccNSO Council Elections 9) Leadership training (ICANN) Dublin 10) Selection IDN ccTLD representatives ICANN's IDN Guideline review team 11) Council Updates 12) WG updates 13) Liaison Updates 14) Work plan NOTES: Apologies: * Dotty Sparks-Leblanc * Hiro Hotta * Vika Mpisane * Peter Van Roste * Demi Getschko * Ching Chiao Keith Davidson and Nigel Roberts attended, despite apologies prior to the call Meeting is quorate ( at a minimum 9 Councillors and 1 from every ICANN region) Minutes approved 3. Internet Governance Young Eum Lee mailed report 4. IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Processes 4. 1 ICG See Note to Council by Keith 4.2. CCWG Accountability Becky: CCWG 2nd report pc closed. 81 comments. Substantive comment. Lenghtty comment from the Board. Meeting in LA coming Friday and Saturday. See also notes ISTACC Byron: notes blog Larry Strickling, just published Nigel Robert: Concerned board is more then commenting, but sending its own proposal. Becky: Charter has a process in place. Nigel: reservations about process 4.3 CWG Stewardship ISTACC call, coordination call, see notes CWG is mostly behind, however there is conditionality between CWG Proposal and CCWG . Open issue was SLE. However this now closed. Discussion on implementation. 4.4. Overview of sessions Will be shared with Council Issue could be if no proposal In planning of the meeting: working on the basis of two scenarios. Comments: sensible plan. For a remote participants very difficult to note where we are in the process At start of each block, do a summary of previous Suggestion taken on board. 5. WG EPSRP Only one addtional volunteers Motion KAtrina Seconder: Becky Discussion: Katrina Giovanni appointed as chair Approved unanimous 6. Appointment TLD-Ops oversight committee At MArrakesh appoint Oversight Committee Also includes new person Motion: KAtrina Seconder: Abibu Carried Unanimously 7. Appointment NomCom member Council Motion: Young Eum Lee Seconder: Becky Carried unanomously Chair will inform Joerg Schweiger personally 8. Council Elections update Europe still needs to nominate LAC needs to nominate two candidates Nigel will encourage candidates to put their names forward 9. Leadership training Dublin Resolution to adopt report Motion: Young eum Seconder: Becky Discussion: None Carried uanimously 10. IDN Guideline review team Resolution is call for volunteers. Motion: Katrina Seconder: Young Eum No discussion Carried unanimously 11. Council updates Chair update: working towards Dublin meeting ISTACC call: see notes No Questions Vice chair updates: None Councillor updates: None RO update: None Staff update: None 12 WG updates GRC Katrina. Work on Guidelines continues. Two Guidelines ready. New members have a look at the Guidelines Meeting Guidelines. Work is progressing CCWG Country names update written update, to be send after Council meeting Program WG update Lot of time on CCWG and related topics. Legal and MArketing session. ccTLD new session. Session on Meting B strategy and general meting with two appointed Board members FOI Advisory team update: written update by Keith Becky: prelimenary call. IANA people asking good questions 13 Liaison updates : written update 14. Workplan No discussion 15. Next Meetings 16 Council meeting in Dublin Council meeting Sunday two hour block No additional topics raised for meetings with Board, GAC and GNSO Katrina: Suggestions for meeting with ALAC. 17 AOB Katrina: ccNSO coktail Need for addtional sponsors How much money do we need estimate: between 8-10.000 USD Community calls are getting more and more difficult .ie assiting locally 18. Adjourn closure 12.52 UTC

1 0

Draft Resolution Council
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the draft resolutions for tomorrows call. Due to late closure of some of the call for volunteers etc. you receive the resolution at such late notice. Kind regards, Bart

2 1

FW: [ISTACC] Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from ISTACC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the notes from todays ISTACC call This is background material for item nr 4 on the agenda Kind regards, Bart ISTACC - 23 September @20:00 UTC Agenda 1. Welcome and roll call 2. Update ICG * Current status * Result of public comment outcome of ICG f-2-f meeting 3. Update CWG * SLE * IP * Submission CWG on Conditionality 4. Update CCWG * Public comment * Anticipated outcome f-2-f meeting LA * Expected date Final Report WS 1 5. Session on ICG, CWG and CCWG at the Dublin meeting 6. AOB Apologies: Keith Davidson, Giovanni Seppia, Mathieu Weill, Peter van Roste * NOTES: 2. Update ICG Current status Result of public comment outcome of ICG f-2-f meeting Overview of comments received. Members ICG read through comments If reach-out needed, then to specific community - PTI came out strongly as a concern, need to referred to all communities - non-ccNSO ccTLD should not be made compulsary - Question removal of ICP-1 as policy refefence: - Agreement on terms of IPR Tomorrow call for ICG Suggestion to read Blog post from ICG: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-full-steam-ahead Paul Kane: Welcome comment on non-ccNSO ccTLD. Composition of CSC: according CWG, proposes non-ccNSO ccTLD be made member of CSC. One commment: should not be made mandatory. Paul K comment: non-ccNSO member should be part of CSC Mary: Names community should clarify. Byron: Provide claririty around ICP-1 Mary: question goes back to NAming community to provide clarification, not role of ICG. Mary: Nothing said on delegation and redelgation in names proposals. Comment: it is part of dicussion in Dublin * 2. Update CWG SLE IP Submission CWG on Conditionality Update Lise: SLE finalised at last call, submitted to ICG, and one follow-up where ICANN/IANA is with regard with scoping document. Document needs to be approved by NTIA. Staff to get update where IACAN/IANA is. SLE does improve service. Lot of bureacracy to run Feed-back that must be weigh CWG awaiting from ICG. co-chairs are scheduling call to coordinate how to deal with questions IPR: dealt with under implementation phase. CWG is supporting transfer IPR to a trust. Sidley draft submission on requirements CWG requirements. - IANA budget, apporve or veto -> changed to veto - Appeals mechanism: Clarity around IANA decisions is needed * Submission CWG into public comment Call with CCWG co-chairs: Board has submitted comment that would change substantial parts of proposals * Call with CWG tomorrow with Sidley to check whether Board "proposal" would meet the requriements of the CWG. Porposal CCWG to date meets requiements with minor additionas. If proposal Implementation process: Need to discuss with CCWG. Not scheduled a conversation on implementation. Role of CWG in implementation needs to be discussed. * Question Mary: Does CWG foresee requirement CWG ar enot met by CCWG? If so would this derail transition Paul Kane: work item is ongoing. The CWG has not considered the CCWG Question: Where does CWG go from here, looking at the isues raised. Personally: It would make sense if the CWG would continue during implementation. Input members needed. If group agrees to get involved in implementation go back to chartering organisation. Also question of ICG and how they see there role in implmentation * 4. Update CCWG Public comment Anticipated outcome f-2-f meeting LA Expected date Final Report WS 1 Becky: Public comment closed Broad range of substantive comments Board comments: too much change and therfore de-stabilises. However, comments do not provide clarity. - Process recall Board - Community powers Community review Principle objection on Single member model. Personal Interpretation: affects the balance of powers too much Proposal may have enforcibality issues * CCWG meeting in LA. Not a meeting with the Board, but a lot of Board members will be present. Focus of meeting is to go over comments received, including Board comments * If Board recommendations were to be adopted, significant re-write of Proposal would be needed. Comment: Difficult conversation will be if submission from one stakeholder will be followed? Another point: if Board proposals were to be follooed there may be issue with requirements CWG. Expectation: it will be very difficult to ask adoption by chartering in Dublin * Questions: Any sense of when there is a revised document? Depends on what happens in LA, in context of all and taking into account all comments Because of impact on workload of CCWG members it amy be unreasonable to expect to meet 9 October deadline. In best case just a few days before the meeting Comment/Question: Strong external signals about complexity etc. How does it impact decision making of CCWG? Comment: Ira's messaging more positive. Core of leadership in conversation with community, is support of solid proposal that not gives it away to GAC. Diificult to walk back from voting structure. Need to have enough consensus. * Issue of Complexity of 2nd Proposal is non-sensical. It applies as well as to Board proposal Issue is writing, the style and way the proposals are presented makes it complex due to time pressures * Paul K: Better getting it right. Focus in Congress is on Accountability. and not so much on IANA Transition. Transition can happen once Accountability is in palce. Messaging needs to be significantly simplified. Comment: Process timeline is hard and fast looking. Question: around Bush campaign. Answer: do not read too much into it. In election year anything can happen. Congressional leadership is stil comfortable. Paul K: emphasize IAAN contract could be extended. Important tha teverything is in place to avoid capture. 5. Session on ICG, CWG and CCWG at the Dublin meeting Presentation of rough session proposals ( Included) Co-chairs and team leads CWG and CCWG will be contacted to discuss sessions in more detail * 6. AOB Nothing raised * Next call in two weeks: 7 October 20.00 UTC

1 0

Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 24 September @12:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear all, Thank you for indicating your availability for the call. Please find the dial in details below: The Council Call will take place on 24 September at 12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. If you need a dial out, please let me know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Outcome NomCom Delegate selection
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear all, As I was in transit yesterday I have included all votes I have received until noon UTC today (Thursday 23 September). I have received the votes from 13 Councillors. Based on the votes submitted Joerg Schweiger (.de) is the selected candidate Kind regards, Bart Overview of expressed preferences: Preferences Candidates NomCom position Ballot number Date Name candidate Staffan Paulos Joerg 201501 15-Sep-15 Staffan 1 201502 15-Sep-15 Paulos 1 201503 15-Sep Joerg 1 201504 16-Sep Paulos 1 201505 17-Sep Paulos 1 201506 21-Sep Staffan 1 201507 21-Sep Staffan 1 201508 21-Sep Staffan 1 201509 21-Sep Joerg 1 201510 22-Sep Paulos 1 201511 22-Sep Joerg 1 201512 23-Sep Joerg 1 201513 23-Sep Joerg 1 13 4 4 5

1 0

Status of Action Items from 20 August Council Call
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear all, Please find the Action Items from the last Council call. All Action Items are completed. Action 109-01: Keith Davidson, Becky Burr, Nigel Roberts and the Secretariat to draft a note to the ICG regarding the Framework of Interpretation and ICP1. - Draft has been prepared, circulated to Council and submitted Action 109-02: The Secretariat to draft a resolution to add another week and re-issue a call for volunteers for appointment to ICANN Nominating Committee. - Draft has been circulated, and adopted by Council, Call for Nominations has been send out. Action 109-03: The Secretariat is to present a draft list of criteria for appointment to the ICANN Leadership training in Dublin - Selection committee was established (Lesley , Jordi volunteers, Byron as chair of the ccNSO). Candidates have been selected and informed. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0