Hello All,

Please find below some high-level notes from today’s joint meeting between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, held on 17 March at 19 UTC, which may help you navigate through the recording of the meeting.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

Recording and slides will become available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MAFACQ

1. Welcome 

Welcome by the respective ccNSO and GNSO chairs, Katrina Sataki and Philippe Fouquart.

Katrina thanks the liaisons who worked on the topics of mutual interest for today’s agenda. Philippe seconds this.

2. IDN 

Update provided by Ai-Chin Lu.

The results of ccPDP4 will replace the 2009  IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. 

The ccNSO PDP4 working group - on  Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) ccTLD strings - has started its review of the 2013 ccNSO policy proposals for IDN ccTLD string selection criteria, processes and required documentation.  

The 2013 policy proposals did not include the topic of variant management. The Variant Management  subgroup started its work recently. At its meeting earlier this week, Alireza Saleh, the sub-WG Chair, was nominated as ccNSO liaison to the GNSO IDN policy development efforts. His nomination needs to be confirmed by the ccNSO Council.  The full ccPDP4 Working Group and the subgroup work in parallel: each group meets on alternate Tuesdays.  Expectation is that two additional subgroups will be formed: 

• One to deal with  confusing similarity
• One to define the trigger for the deselection of IDN ccTLDs

Group’s timeline foresees an Interim Report by December 2021. Progress against work plan will be checked post ICANN70. 

3. IDN ccTLD Membership 

Update provided by Ai-Chin Lu.

Currently, the ICANN bylaws do not allow IDN ccTLDs to become members of the ccNSO.  In February 2020, the ccNSO requested changes to Article 10 of the ICANN Bylaws, which cover two aspects: 

• an updated definition of ccNSO membership to allow IDN ccTLD Managers to become members
• Changes to the membership section of Article 10 and the Annex dealing with the PDP to accommodate the changes of the ccNSO. The major change is moving away from the principle of “one vote per ccTLD” to “one vote per Territory”

Following questions from ICANN legal on the original proposal, the ccNSO (members and Council) adopted a formal note in February this year, in response to ICANN legal. This statement was prepared by a drafting team, which took into consideration input from the ccNSO membership and Council. 

Kristian Oermen asks whether the ASCII ccTLD manager is also the IDN ccTLD manager. 

Katrina said that this is not always the case. One vote per territory means that both ccTLD managers need to agree on an Emissary. 

Bart: In addition to what Katrina said, in some Territories there are over 10 IDN ccTLDs.

In principle the first members will hold the vote, up and until in Territory they have reached agreement.

Tatiana: Do you foresee issues?

Katrina: internal matter for them to resolve. Potentially the IDN ccTLD manager might not want to become a ccNSO member

Philippe asks for examples. Maxim responds: .ua, .ge at least

Mark: the IDN could independently join the ccNSO and be their own legal person with a vote?

Tatiana: can IDN join if there is already a cc from the same territory? And IDN and cc both want to be the vote holder?

Bart: 

• To Mark: the IDN ccTLD manager can join independently and participate and vote, except in case both the IDn and ASCII are member and vote Council election, Board member nomination, and final vote on policy recommendations. 
• To Tatiana: as soon as the membership definition is adjusted, IDN ccTLD Managers can become members, just like the (ASCII) ccTLD Managers

4. Sub-Pro – Update from the GNSO

Intro by Philippe

Jeff Neumann thanks ccNSO appointed members, especially Annebeth Lange, who was also a member of the leadership team.

5. SCBO & SOPC – ICANN Budgets 

John McElwaine:

Joint meeting between SOPC and SCBO to go over initial comments and concerns regarding 

ICANN's FY22-26 draft Operating and Financial Plan and FY22 draft Operating Plan and Budget.

Potentially another meeting, following the results of the comments. GNSO made some requests for clarifications.

Update by Giovanni:

SOPC submitted its comments 15 Feb. Highlights:

• Doc was not accessible. 400 pages. 
• Operational and financial plan was better structured than previous ones. Forecast closer to ccTLD and GTLD domain growth
• ICANN should be more prudent in terms of costs
• Allocation of reserved fund reached a reasonable level
• Operational and functional activities: confusion between goals, metrix, deliverables, outcomes etc. key milestones for some milestones are sound. Sometimes they look like processes, and not like milestones
• Failure to see a prioritisation of the initiatives and priorities.

Philippe: SCBO is open to non-councillors. The exercise on the budget is not easy. Dry, but still we appreciate the efforts of the finance team. In times of remote participation, it becomes even more difficult to convince volunteers to become involved.  Philippe thanks several people involved, especially Giovanni. 

6. NIS-2 and DSA 

Briefing by Peter Vergote (CENTR). 2 documents part of a larger package, which need to make Europe fit for the digital age. 

• Digital Services Act. 

proposal for co-legislators.  Legislation starts to shape up in member states of the EU. cross-border, fraud online, platforms etc. together with RIPE, proposal. What matters for ccTLDS? DSA is not about assigning liability, but tries to harmonise liability across Europe. Why do we discuss this at this global forum? EC’s ambitions reach far outside of Europe, serving european customers. Service-oriented. 

Categories: technical infrastructure providers. Separate category? Still up for discussion internally. CENTR will send a response. 

It has the potential to bring clarification, but we should help the legislators. This whole community. Not a threat. Support can be provided to CENTR by registrars.

Maxim: does illegal include copyright issues?

Peter: up to member states to decide. 

Juan Manuel: only applies to EU or worldwide?

Peter: non europeans service providers need to indicate a formal place of business. Nexus in the European Union for those providers targeting european customers. 

Maxim: is RDAP in those texts?

Peter: not aware of

• NIS2
  TLDs are considered to be “essential entities”. Most ccTLDs already complied to beyond NSI1 requirements. ISO certification for instance

NEW! TLD registries and the entities providing domain name registration services for the TLD shall collect and maintain accurate and complete domain name registration data and are required to provide efficient access to domain registration data for legitimate access seekers.

What is accurate and complete? Identifiable? eID cards for instance. 

What are legitimate access seekers? Law enforcement for instance. Probably goes further. Up for discussion. CENTR keeps an eye at this.

• Intellectual Property

EU toolbox against counterfeiting. Includes ccTLDs

• E-evidence continued

ccTLDs currently deal with own law enforcement agencies. Now the question is: how does this work cross-border? E.g. Danish ccTLD to receive request from czech law enforcement? Confirmation by local court? Will not speed up things, but it might be clearer, given some fears following the GDPR restrictions.

Question by Tatiana.

Peter: EUROPOL and EC work on streamlined processes where verification would happen through the process. Law enforcement agencies in centralised database, language preferences would be taken into account. Peter will pass on the question to Polina. 

7. PTI / Empowered Community 

Rejection action period for PTI budget today

8. Reviews of reviews 

Several conflicting requests.

Jordan: different organisational improvement strands. Disruption on general work. Less intensive cadence of reviews. Rather not each silo within the structure. 

Mark: try to engage with Xavier’s team. Keep ourselves updated.

Stephanie: fan of a pause on the reviews. Pandemic is a good excuse.  Plan will become available soon.

Any support for this? Some green ticks in the room. 

Jeff: no new reviews? Do not implement the previous reviews done?

Katrina: implement, but no new reviews

Jeff: I get the no new reviews.  But we would have lots of unhappy people if we didn't implement ATRT3, cct-rt, SSRT2. 

9. AOB

• The IANA naming functions amendments on the GNSO council agenda next week. Slightly after the comment period. 
• Last joint meeting with Katrina as chair of the ccNSO. Thanks from GNSO Council to Katrina.
• Thanks by Katrina to the presenters, liaisons, all participating today 

10. Closure

Thank you all. bye!

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor

joke.braeken@icann.org