Special Council Call - 23 December 2015 @12:00 UTC
Agenda:
1 Welcome & roll call
2. Taking stock - Where are we?
3. Next steps
Notes
Welcome & roll call
Apologies:
Peter Vergrote
Young-eum Lee
Hiro Hotta
Not attending:
Souleymane, Vika, Ching Chiao, Celia
Meeting is quorate.
Fluid nature of CCWG
In contrast to where we anticipated when we agreed to have special meeting
Basic Agenda
Agreed by all present
In November meeting agreed to have today's meeting
Goal at the time to be in position to make a decision
Watching process, it is a fluid situation. Purpose now is to have a feeling from
Council on direction of travel.
Agreed Basic methodology
Understand if there is general consensus
Requisite number of members of CCWG need to support proposal Unanimity is not required. Their job to engage in process (together with participants)
Further general support for essence of proposal from community and thirdly conditionality of CWG -Stewardship needs
to be met.
Invitation to Councilors need to speak up
Taking stock
Timeline: Submission by end January
Recent events put timeline under question.
ｷ
Number of comments received, including from ROs and individual ccTLDs
ｷ
US Politics: DOTCOM has not come to floor and likely will not, not part of the US Omnibus. Maybe some positive elements not make as well. -> Becky: Process is less clear, some level or order we do not have now. If result is well structured and well supported, could shorten 30 legislative day process. If all went
relatively well, may not need 30 legislative days.
ｷ
Board comment is extensive: one side relative supportive, on other side critical. Without addressing those
potential of slippage
GAC position appears to be on its way
ccNSO appointed CCWG member are not unanimous. Concerns on process
CWG Stewardship Comment
Requirement is that a minimum more clarity is needed.
Summarize as being positive and headed in direction of support, but need for additional clarity if not change
Next Steps
Nigel: Brief sense. Will there a resolution?
Response: Not in position to pass a resolution, but need provide an opinion
Nigel: agree not in a position to take a resolution
We could provide feed-back to CCWG, wants to provide input, could do over the list?
Response: What are we going to do still not clear, but basic suggestion is to make a meaningful and constructive contribution
Other communities have had varying opinions. Looking at the ccTLD contributions, generally positive but at
a minimum need for additional clarification and number of issues, that need to be addressed. For overview see email Mathieu as forwarded.
Question: What is Council going to do over evolved landscape
Stephen: No reason to go forward other than with thank you , premature to take other position,
before last hurdles have been taken.
Lesley: Inclined to be more supportive then Stephen
Include need for clarity. Minded to be supportive, subject to clarification
Keith: I don't really think we need to - would be nice to get greater clarity to see if we can achieve unanimity...
Becky: In agreement as described by Lesley and Byron
Proposed direction statement
ｷ
Appreciate work
ｷ
Reminding CCWG that from cTLD perspective
-
Conditionality of work around the CWG-Stewardship must be met
-
Note fact that ccTLD and ROs in general supportive but flag they have noted issues.
At a minimum provide more clarity.
Any comments on messaging?
Peter Van Roste supportive of line of reasoning as well as Abibu and others
Drafting process
ｷ
Include messages in draft ( Byron and Bart)
ｷ
To be circulated over the list right after X-Mas: Ensure that it is on the list so Councillors could chime in
ｷ
Send to CCWG just before new-year
General agreement over procedure. All expect brief text over next few days
Revisit topic on regular scheduled meeting 21 January 2016
AOB
No further questions