Notes
ccNSO Council meeting 216
Thursday, 17 April 2025 (21:00 UTC)
Table of contents
Background and supporting documents
4. Intermeeting Council Decisions (since meeting 215, March 2025)
5. Intermeeting Decisions Triage Committee
6. Update ECA, IFRT & CSC (written updates)
7. Update Working Groups (written updates)
8. Update Liaisons (written updates)
9. Update ccNSO Website redesign
10. Progress Board Consideration ccPDP4-IDN and ccPDP3-RM
11. Update Chair, Vice-chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations and Secretariat
13. Update Special Council election European region
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS
14. Progress comments IANA Function Review Team’s Initial report
15. Effectiveness reviews ccNSO Working Groups and Committees
16. Appointment members or chairs/vice chairs to committees and working groups, if any
SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS
17. Update “How we meet” process and next steps
19. Tentative block schedule ICANN83
Welcome by Alejandra. Please add “council” to your name in Zoom.
Alert: item 18 on the agenda has been overtaken by events. Letter to Tripti regarding reviews. Letter was sent.
Thanks for all that joined the How We Meet Meeting
a.
SOI updates
Consult the
ccNSO SOI Guideline
Complete the SOI
template
Check the ccNSO
Statements of Interest
Pablo: as of today, I am no longer employed by the registry .pr.
Nevertheless, my past employer has expressed its interest and support in me participating in the ccNSO. An official letter will soon be sent to
the Council chair and Secretariat.
Alejandra: we look forward to the letter. We took note, please nonetheless please update your SOI, Pablo
b.
Meeting Quorum
Claudia lists the apologies. We are quorate
a.
Request for clarification regarding the ICANN ccTLD retirement policy by Kim Davies | Vice President, IANA Services and President, Public Technical
Identifiers.
b.
E-mail from the co-chairs of the Pilot Holistic Review
c.
Letter to ECA regarding the ccNSO appointment of Alejandra Reynoso to ECA
d.
Letter to Chair ICANN Board regarding Reviews
Stephen: Next step after our response to Kim Davies?
Chris: we just answered the question. That’s it
Bart: it is up to ICANN org if there are additional questions.
a.
Minutes Meeting 214
Circulated to the Council mailing list on 31 March 2025
No questions or comments.
Minutes approved.
b.
Action Items Meeting 214
Councillors are requested to complete the Council 360 review surveys by 3 March
GRC is requested to draft a proposed Council comment on the Proposed Updates to the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews
The ccNSO Secretariat and Peter Koch are requested to draft input for Council’s discussion and consideration, regarding input for the work by
the RSS GWG.
Regarding the appointment of the members to IGLC and MPC, the secretariat is requested to inform the respective working groups and the secretariat
is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website.
The Secretariat is requested to inform the GRC that the review of the ccNSO Council Selection Process Guideline should include current practice
when a Councillor or Councillor-elect changes affiliation.
The Secretariat is requested to send out meeting invites for a closed Council discussion, to discuss the next steps for the Councillor-elect who
changed affiliation.
c.
Minutes Meeting 215
Circulated to Council on 2 April 2025
No questions or comments.
Minutes approved.
Alejandra: Some of the action items completed, some ongoing, some for discussion today
No questions or comments regarding the action items
d.
Action Items Meeting 215
The current ccNSO appointees to the Customer Standing Committee jointly with the Chair will seek a qualified candidate to fulfill the role of
alternate member.
The Secretariat will take the necessary steps for a Council comment on the IFRT2 request for comments
The Secretariat is requested to send a reminder with the links to the 360 degree review survey to the eligible Councillors.
The Secretariat is requested to inform the ICANN secretary of the election of Alejandra Reynoso as ccNSO Council chair and post an announcement
on the ccNSO Website. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
The Secretariat is requested to inform the ICANN secretary of the election of Biyi Oladipo and Jordan Carter as ccNSO Council vice chairs and
post an announcement on the ccNSO Website. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the assignment of the Council Roles and Responsibilities and the overview on
the ccNSO website as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
The ccNSO Chair and secretariat are requested to develop a schedule and timeline for review of the various groups, after consulting the various
committees and taking into account the workload to conduct a review and need for a review. The schedule and timeline are expected by meeting 216. See item 15 agenda of this meeting.
The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution regarding the adoption of the Review Blueprint as soon as possible. This resolution becomes
effective 7 days after publication.
The chair is requested to inform the various working groups about the Review Blueprint as soon as possible after the resolution becomes effective.
The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the timeline for the special Elections for the European region,
and the appointment of the Council Election Process Manager as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective 7 days after publication.
The secretariat is also requested to publish the resolution regarding the appointment of members to various committees and/or working groups as
soon as feasible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
Molehe Wesi and Jodi Andersson, the ccNSO appointees to the ICANN discussion group, are requested to review the outcomes of the members' meeting
session on “how we meet”.
ccNSO Council is requested to prepare a statement in response to the request for public comments on the “How we meet” process.
The Council drafting team and Secretariat are requested to prepare a draft letter to the ICANN Board by Council meeting 216, regarding the Pilot
Holistic Review and related matters.
The Council drafting team and Secretariat are requested to prepare a draft response to the request for clarification regarding the retirement
policy by Council meeting 216.
No additional decisions
There were no intermeeting decisions by the ccNSO Triage Committee.
Written updates delayed but coming soon
a.
ECA: Rejection action ICANN’s FY 26-30 Strategic Plan
The ccNSO Council has not received any rejection action petition.
Deadline was 11 April
b.
Searching a CSC Alternate: completed
No questions or comments
a.
ccPDP3-Review Mechanism
- Dormant
b.
ccPDP4-IDN
- Dormant
c.
DASC
d.
FIN2 WG
e.
GRC
f.
IGLC
g.
MPC
h.
OMC
i.
PGA WG
j.
SOPC
k.
Tech WG
l.
TLD-OPS SC
m.
Triage Committee
n.
UAC
o.
CIP-CCG
p.
Planning Prioritization Process group
q.
RZERC
r.
RSS GWG
s.
ICANN How We Meet Group
Written updates - if any - are published on the wiki space for this meeting.
a.
Update ccNSO Liaison to ALAC
b.
Update ccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council
c.
Update ccNSO Liaison
to UASG
Alejandra: update from ICANN. We could see progress made so far. We will receive a high-level timeline in the next month. Once of the dependencies
is the volunteer work by the ccnso website group. Work is ongoing. Review, content creation etc.
Stephen: starts to look good. Lots of work done.
Bart: The board will be asked to consider the policy in Prague. Regarding ccPDP4 the board Caucus is now reviewing the policy. They are now into
variant management. Next step: confusing similarity.
No questions or comments
a.
1-on-1 ccNSO leadership & ICANN CEO & President
Alejandra: productive meeting with Kurtis. As soon as notes are available will let you know. Used the meeting to alert him about the letter on
reviews. We did not discuss the letter on retirement policy. Reminded him of the promise from ICANN Legal regarding playbook, bylaw changes (coming from the CSC review recommendation) and as a result, if the gNSO Council agrees, the 3rd CSC review needs to
be deferred yet another time.
Biyi: nothing to add
No other updates
Alejandra: despite reminders, quorum was not met (min 10 submissions). Do we want to continue with those reviews? No need to decide now. It is
frustrating, especially for those being reviewed, that the outcome is not valid. On the one hand, people appreciated the feedback, we kept sending reminders, some responded in a timely manner
Pablo: can we still respond?
Stephen: can we extend a few more days
Alejandra: we also extended for a month
Joke: To fill the vacancy on the ccNSO Council for the European region, the ccNSO recently opened a call for nominations, which closed on Tuesday,
15 April 2025, at 23:59 UTC. This new nomination process was initiated because the Councillor-elect from the European region, chosen during the 2025 ccNSO Council nomination process, resigned in February 2025.
The following candidate has been nominated, seconded, and accepted their nomination in line with the established rules and timeline: Nigel Roberts.
A Q&A session will be held on 29 April, 14 UTC, to offer the members an opportunity to meet with Nigel and ask questions.
If a region has the same number of nominees as available seats at the nomination deadline, those nominees are elected by default, and no election
will be held for that region.
An election report is forthcoming. Once the report has been adopted by Council, Nigel’s term starts.
Bart: Peter (co-chair IFRT) and Barrack (RO) stepped forward to join the drafting team. Bart started an initial draft. Findings and recommendations
in the report: everything is going well. In the report there is the observation on the role of the ombuds, in case of a complaints by iana. You have to go to the ombuds, in case you want mediation. Incidental recommendation of the IFRT. include the ombuds
to avoid capture. Mechanism was developed in 2016, when there was no external mechanism yet. There is already one for gTLDS, with IRP and the reconsideration process, and soon also for ccTLDs. Is ATRT3 still necessary? Can it be done as soon as the review
mechanism is fully operational?
Peter: the ccnso should indeed look into that. Small team to discuss more in detail. Icann legal advise. Team members went back to the transition
docs on why the ombuds was involved. There were opportunistic reasons to abstain form making it a strong recommendation. When we finalised the draft. Politics might have played a role. As well as the review mechanism. None of these paths have ever been executed.
People did involve the ombuds in their complaints to iana, but not via that path. Out of precaution, and consistency with the rest of the mechanisms.
There is at least one comment filed. People are not opening the question or jurisdiction broadly, but the location of DNS keys outside of US territory.
About policy and politics behind it.
Alejandra: suggestion to first see the draft, and then we might have questions
Deadline is the 28th. That’s a Monday. Please give time to Council to review, and ask questions, if any.
a.
Adoption Timelines reviews
Alejandra: the chair and secretariat were requested to propose a schedule for review of the ccNSO committees under assumption that the committees
will continue their work over the next years.
As you will have noted, if we stick to the cadence of review of the charters and terms of reference of the committees, we fall into the trap of constantly 2 or 3
reviews around every ICANN meeting going forward. Again the problem, what appears to be reasonable at a granular level, becomes a problem at an aggregate level.
Therefore we propose a schedule for reviews of maximum 2 per calendar year, assuming these reviews can be done effectively and efficiently. The DASC review set the
standard.
Draft Resolution
Background
Taking into account the need for regular review of the purpose of the committees and long-standing working groups, and the effectiveness and efficiency
in which a group conducts its business to achieve its goals, the ccNSO Council adopted a standard methodology to conduct reviews. The Council also agreed that using the adopted method, all committees and long-standing working groups will need to be reviewed,
however being mindful of the increase in workload, limitations in capacity, and added value of the reviews, the chair and secretariat propose the following schedule for reviews:
Move? Pablo
Second? Stephen
No questions or comments.
Approved.
Schedule reviews of committees:
Decision
The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed schedule for reviews and requests its chair to inform the committees and working groups accordingly.
The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after publication
b.
Launch Review MPC
Request to draft template MPC review using template, to be completed before meeting 217.
Alejandra: As we just adopted the schedule, and to make best use of our time in Prague, suggest that we ask the secretariat to draft the terms
of reference for a review of the MPC, and share this before the upcoming Council meeting.
Do you agree? Green ticks in Zoom
Alert to Councilors: we will need volunteers to join the review team! Those actively involved in the MPC are not eligible. It is not a self-review.
We need the team by next Council Meeting. Any questions or comments? None.
Alejandra: Pleased to see people that have not volunteered before. It enriches the conversations.
Any questions or comments? None
Move? Wafa
Second? Pablo
Decision
The ccNSO Council appoints the following people as:
The secretariat is requested to inform the various working groups and committees and persons appointed and publish this resolution as soon as
possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
Green ticks in zoom.
No objections. This is approved.
Welcome to all. Looking forward to see the fruits of their work
Alejandra: yesterday we received the doc. Who volunteers to join the drafting team, apart from Molehe and Jodi? Pablo volunteers.
Will confirm with Molehe if he agrees.
Anything we should consider, after yesterday’s conversation? No comments or questions raised.
Suggestion to have the draft ready by 1 May. is that feasible?
Bart: we do have the notes from yesterday. That makes it a lot easier to start drafting.
Pablo: works from my end. Happy to collaborate with the team.
Alejandra: was yesterday’s call helpful, to discuss it separately prior to the meeting today?
Pablo: yes, was good. It is important.
Alejandra: letter was already sent
Any comments or observations?
Claudia: meeting mo-thu
Claudia refers to the sessions on the block schedule, starting with Tech Day on Monday, and the various sessions as part of the ccnso members
meeting. Save the date for the cocktail is forthcoming, as soon as there is information.
All meetings in ccnso room. Casual meet-up for newcomers will be in a different u-shaped form. Thursday, council meeting will also be in a smaller
U-shaped room, not in the ccnso room.
Alejandra: big room makes it hard to have a conversation, looking forward to the smaller room for the council meeting.
The joint meeting with the RySG: topics in common. DASC for instance, but also others.
Possible way is to use overarching themes, like we have in our
purpose statement, and within them identify
areas, avoid that we focus too much on WG and committees
Alejandra: volunteers to help organize the joint meeting with RySG. Needs to be done by the next council meeting.
Chris volunteered.
Briefing paper is being displayed. Brainstorm by Bart and Alejandra.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c3tTfiW37XUt3KUNmmSWximvJAuz4WfjnxTOCScDDGA/edit?tab=t.0
Hope this will be an interactive session. Hoping for feedback from the room. Where can we work better? We are all registries, albeit different.
Chris: the idea is to make it a session where we explore areas for cooperation going forwards…the document provides some useful input.
None
Thank you all.