NOTES | ccNSO Council Meeting 208 | 22 August 2024 (18:00 UTC)

Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Alejandra.

Extensive thank you to Tatiana, recognising her for her valuable contributions to Council and ccNSO.

Alejandra mentioned that at the next meeting council will need to discuss the replacement of Tatiana in Triage Committee, IGLC etc.

a. Is meeting Quorate?

yes. apologies by Jenifer and Olga

3 items for AOB

Bart: 360 review
Chris: voluntary fraud grace period
Nick: DASC survey and charter review

Alejandra: can we skip items 3-10?

Nick: yes, in favour of efficiency. can we scroll through the items?

2. Update Statement of Interest

For information Guideline & Template

Administrative matters

3. Relevant Correspondence

a. Letter from ICANN re WSIS+20 (item 17)

Letter to ICANN and response from ICANN re “How we meet” (item 18)

4. Minutes & Action Items

a. Minutes Meeting 207: Circulated 29 July 2024

Action items

5. Intermeeting Decisions (since meeting 207, July 2024)

6. Intermeeting decisions Triage Committee

Updates

7. Update ECA, IFR2 & CSC (written updates)

Note: Proposed change to Article 4, which is Fundamental Bylaw. Requires ccNSO approval

Tentatively scheduled community forum@iCANN81

8. Update WGs (written updates)

a. ccPDP3-Review Mechanism - Dormant

b. ccPDP4-IDN - Dormant

c. DASC

d. GRC

e. IGLC

f. MPC

g. OMC - To be established

h. PGA WG - First meeting is scheduled for 27 August 2024

i. SOPC

j. Tech WG - Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

k. TLD-OPS SC - Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

l. UAC

m. Triage Committee - Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

n. CCG WS2 Implementation- Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

o. IRP Panel Selection - Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

p. Planning Prioritization Process group - Had no meeting since Council meeting 207

q. RZERC

r. RSS GWG

s. CIP-CCG

9. Update liaisons (written updates)

a. Update ALAC Liaison

b. Update GNSO Liaison

c. Update UASG Liaison

10. Update ccNSO Website redesign

11. Update Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat

a. ICANN81 Planning call (Block schedule, Plenary topics), see item 17 & 19c

b. SO/AC Roundtable meeting, see item 17

c. Meeting on “How we meet”, see item 18

pilot holistic review call by chairs yesterday.

12 primary candidates + 3 incoming fro SSAC + 1 incoming from the Board = 16
+1 secondary candidate to balance region on gender diversity
Total of 17 members.
4 potential co-chairs, in order of preference will be contacted to check whether they are willing to do the job.
GAC couldn’t attend the call. Their approval will be requested.

Stephen: call for presentation proposals to Tech Day is out now

Administrative Matters & Decisions

12. Appointment Members to Committees and Working Groups, if any

none today

13. Adoption letter on deferral 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review

Letter to send to Tripti and Sally on the deferral of the 3rd CSC effectiveness review

For the record the arguments to defer the review are:

The 2nd review closed in March 2023 (a little over a year ago) and the ccNSO and GNSO Councils adopted the final report in April 23. The Board was first informed about the outcome, including the recommended change to Bylaws to extend the period between reviews from every 3 years, starting in October, to 5 years after conclusion of the previous review.

As result of this short time between reviews, the recommendations from previous review will most likely not be implemented, and finally, thai review is again overlapping with the IAAN Function review, which is for a small part also looking at the CSC/PTI relation, and also overlaps in resources.

We drafted the letter jointly. See background materials. Any questions? none. Alejandra will send the letter on behalf of both Councils

Move? Stephen

Second? Sean

Any questions regarding resolution? none

All in favour

14. Update & introduction changes to ccNSO Travel Support Guideline

Peter: the committee met twice and had email exchange. guideline was streamlined. details removed, and having a fresh read and editorial changes. We met earlier today. Guideline is not yet fully finalised.

Purposes is to finalise in time for the ICANN82 round. hope we can approve the guideline via an intermediary decision.

idea is to give the committee a bit more leeway in evaluating the criteria. start measuring the success. assisting active participants to join the meeting physically, and also help new people to network and become active in the ccNSO community. the intention is to evaluate this new approach in a year or two.

wafa agrees.

Alejandra: what is the next step?

proposal first to Council ? then also to community?

Peter: understood it will be subject to community review. trust the secretariat with the formalities

Joke: icann82 application round starts prior to ICANN 81.

Bart: Council has a week for comments, then circulate to community for one week. then it is ready for adoption. can do that online, but there is also enough time to do that at the next Council meeting.

15. Generic “letter” to invite ccTLDs to join the ccNSO?

received the request to send an invite letter to an individual ccTLD. proposal to make a generic letter instead.

Sean: Is that enough?

Alejandra: We do not know. but ccNSO is a voluntary organisation.

Ali: How many ccTLDs are not yet members?

Alejandra: we have the list

Bart: Not that easy. Some ccTLD managers run several ccTLDs. they are only member for one. And there are IDN ccTLDs. original thinking at the time: ccNSO not to actively seek membership. this is a voluntary organisation.

Peter: let’s first check with the ccTLD whether it is enough. We can trust the secretariat to send the letter without formalities from our side

Alejandra: reminds me about the funded traveller process. if you need a letter to apply for a visa, there is a generic one, but can be personalised

post a generic one on the website

Stephen: rather post “contact secretariat” if you need an invitation letter

have boiler plate ready.

Chris: agree

Biyi: precedence. up to date we never had to invite someone

Peter: The “invitation” should not be a vehicle in an ion-country dispute about the ccTLD(s)

Chris: not setting a precedent. if we are going to send it, it needs to go to the manager in the IANA DB.

Alejandra: we will prepare a boiler plate text, and send to the council. We will discuss the content on the mailing list.

Substantive Matters & Decisions

16. Update and next steps re requests for clarification and confirmation Board Caucus ccPDP review mechanism

a. Review and support response by Council

As you know the Board Caucus that oversees the assessment of the feasibility of implementation of the Review Mechanism policy asked us in April 2024 (4 months ago) to provide clarifications and/or confirmation about the policy. At the time we decided that a group of Councillors and members of the ccPDP3 WG would prepare our response to the questions, without changing the recommended policy and the Council would need to sign off on the responses. At the time we appointed Jordan and Stephen as co-chairs.

As you recall it was raised more than once whether the process the Board is using, is within the boundaries of section 15 a of the Annex B of the Bylaws: a. The Board shall meet to discuss the ccNSO Recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Issue Manager, taking into account procedures for Board consideration

Stephen: text is done, but formatting issues to be resolved. 43 questions. Some questions contained several parts. 27 questions required detailed responses. complete consensus on all matters. thanks to secretariat and Bernard Turcotte and all WG members. please read the responses. Council needs to make a decision.

Jordan: as you review the text, please check. are there fatal flaws? the work product is good enough to send to start the conversation with the board. we try to finish the PDP and not extend the process further. we should do a retrospective on what happened here and how to avoid it in future. let’s avoid it next time. good for all. substantive review and procedural review. sometimes the answer was vague, but on purpose. not an argument we should get into.

Nick: support Jordan’s comments.

Chris: implementation review team. we would be involved there?

Alejandra: implementation guideline. but process?

Bart: in principle yes. include in cover note. alert the caucus.

Nick: not yet received for the retirement

Bart: was still being developed at the time

we invited Marika K. and Karen L. to share their experiences. structuring the ccnso side.

Chris: implementation review team. we should say in the cover note if we did not provide much detail. we dealt with policy now. now it is a matter for implementation

Alejandra: good enough is good enough. one week for review. if there are issues or edits needed, we have some time. Jordan and Stephen will make a final editorial pass.

Do you agree? green ticks.

Topics to include in Cover Note

Now we have closed the discussion on the responses, we need to discuss what we want to include in a cover letter, if anything. It is my understanding that earlier the group suggested 3 points:

Invite the Caucus and staff to discuss the requests and responses. This was suggested to avoid losing time sending letters back and forth.
A response on the foundational assumption made in the cover note from Katrina which paraphrased asks to confirm that the CCRM Policy is limited to a procedural review. So, the substantive material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to a CCRM review.
A formal clarification of scope of section 15 a of Annex B, what can the ccNSO expect to be included in Procedures for Board consideration.
Alert - Companionship of the implementation process - Link Guideline.

Jordan: council members of the group to do that drafting.

Jordan, Stephen, Peter, Chris, Sean volunteered.

17. WSIS+20 exchange of letters: what’s next?

Activities to date:

11. Jul Call drafting team to prep for the informal call with Sally.

15. Jul letter sent

16. Jul informal call with Sally + drafting team.

09. Aug - Call with Elena + drafting team.

14. Aug - heads up to SO/AC chairs on monthly call

15. Aug - Roundtable - no time to present it properly

19. Aug - Our plenary topic didn’t get selected. (Toss of a coin with ALAC’s proposal)

Alejandra: Any further action needed?

Chris: no

Jordan: What do you think?

Alejandra: It is hard. Some are very willing to act. but if we do not have the substantive matter. the only thing we can do is to ask for a status update. unless the informal group is presented to all, we have something not intangible.

Jordan; wait until the end of next week. leave it at that.

Chris: we talk about the at large proposal

Alejandra: no, the informal group that Elena is going to organise.

Chris: i am speaking to Elena tomorrow on a different matter. can check.

Alejandra: our plenary proposal was rejected

Chris: encouraging message from Becky MGilley.

Peter: icann submitted GDC statement earlier today.

18. Follow-up Discussion on ICANN’s “How we meet” initiative

19.Aug - Informal call

Clarification that the informal call did not intend any major decisions. Brainstorm.
How to make work more efficient:
- Less redundant/repetitive. People feeling not heard vs. Not getting what they want.
- Use project management techniques (time bound)
- Best is enemy of the very good (good enough)
- Do we need the space of ICANN offices? (something for the new CEO to finish)
Regarding meetings:
- Improve travel flight costs (new partner ongoing). Timing (faster = cheaper)
- Some suggestions on how to improve meetings costs:
  - Fixed locations
SO/AC Chairs & vice-chairs got a high level summary of ICANN meeting costs. I requested more data to be able to provide personal insights.
- Costs as detailed as possible
- Include inter ICANN meeting in-person activities

Chris: previous surveys at icann said. “complete lack of trust”. but when you explore further, you see that it is made by those who are not being heard.

sections of the community refused to accept the fixed hubs. push the concept of hubs. cost-saving.

Alejandra; unsure when the follow-up conversation is, but will let you know. seems it is going that way

19. Tentative ccNSO Block Schedule ICANN 81

draft schedule being shared.

a. Council (prep) meetings/workshop

on Sunday.

Joint meetings: Meeting with the Board and GAC

wednesday, block 1

Tentative topics GAC meeting:

i. introducing the Policy Gap Analysis

ii. Supporting the MSM in context of WSIS+20

iii. Relevant takeaways 2^nd DNS Abuse survey

Any tentative topics for the Board? Tue 12.Nov - Block 5 (share them on the mailing list)

Plenary session:

confirmed for Wednesday, block 2

(ALAC’s proposal) Working Title: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics, International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.

Anyone would like to join the prep calls?

Working groups/Committees meetings

Tech Day

Members sessions

Interest from the RySG on WSIS+20 - Invite them to IGLC session?

Stephen: Having the Approval Action Forum on the morning of the last day is frankly an insult to the ECA.

Nick: on saturday afternoon block 4 we have a DASC working session. one of the things that comes up is a review of the DASC. i was leading the review of the OISC. was to good to meet with them in person. council to set up a review team. have the interviews in Istanbul?

Bart: secretariat to propose a template for review. similar to OISC.

action item: add to agenda for September meeting

Chris: regarding the ECA, it is right before the public forum. excellent time and location

Stephen: agree.

20. AOB

Bart: 360 council review. you have until today.

We received 11,5 responses, out of 18. please complete asap.

secondly, regarding the DASC survey

https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09aug24-en.htm

4 completed responses to date

useful for the role of DASC in future, and inform the broader community with respect to what ccTLDs are doing to dns abuse

expects councilors to respond, at least

Chris: email from owen. voluntary fraud grace period

Nick and I will deal with it. DASC is the natural place.

alejandra: no objections. no definition of dns abuse.

Chris: just a conversation currently happening.

21. Next Council Meetings

19 September 2024 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 209
17 October 2024 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 210
14 November 2024 | time TBD, Meeting 211 (at ICANN81)
12 December 2024 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 212
16 January 2025 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 213
13 February 2025 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 214

22. Adjourn

thank you all.

Joke Braeken

joke.braeken@icann.org