Dear all, Please find below some informal notes, taking during the ICANN60 council prep meeting earlier today. Best regards, Joke Braeken NOTES 1. discussion on specific reviews according to bylaws, specific reviews need to be conducted. (SSR, ATRT, RDS, CCTR) reviews are guided by the operating standards. each SO/AC to appoint up to 3 members. c. participation in RDS review RDS review: scope was not clear, so our participation was postponed. Chair: Allan Greenberg. They came up with something that is close to the final scope. They are waiting for the feedback from the Board. Are we happy with their work? Can we now appoint people? a. operating standards first draft has been published. Discussed earlier today during the GRC-meeting. MSSI was represented by Lars Hoffman and Larisa Gurnick. ccNSO needs to submit its comments What the Operating Standards try to address: definition of the scope, by having a separate group of people, max 2 reps per SO/AC that try to define a scope within a 6 month timeframe, followed by a 6 month public comment period. Proposal: GRC to submit comments to the Draft Operating Standards Byron: SSR2 are meeting with every constituency group, but us. Is there a reason for that? Katrina spoke with the 2 reps. There was a proposal to meet with Tech Day, but SSR2 did not get a slot there. Proposal to invite our 2 appointed members to the council meeting 1. Session meeting overview +++ CCNSO ALAC meeting (17:00 - 18:00) => CCWG-IG update sent by Young-eum to the council mailing list. This group does not have the usual ICANN WG structure. Other WGs deal with the internal mechanisms, whereas this WG needs to ensure that communities outside of ICANN understand the role of ICANN and give the appropriate recognition of this group. One of the concerns by GNSO: this groups consumes too much resources from ICANN. But this group does not receive funding. Support from ICANN staff needs to be ensured. => WT5, new subsequent procedures PDP topic recurring at different events, e.g. GAC Need for safeguards, GAC and ccNSO as a whole needs to be able to be consulted. Strength of the CCWG model. Participation if the ccNSO would not prevent the ccNSO from launching its own PDP if needed. One of the deep concerns: overlap in definition by gTLD people and ccNSO. “meaningful representation of the name of a country”, says the AGB. Not limited to any list. The definition is not well-defined. Potentially there is a need for a ccNSO PDP. GNSO has to date not responded to the letter of the ccNSO. How do they intend to build in these safeguards? what are the views of ALAC in building in these safeguards? The process is heavy and time-consuming. We need to raise awareness and invite members to participate in WT5. Meeting with GNSO council tomorrow: call for volunteers to be shared with the community after that. Stress the need for the aforementioned safeguards. If there is no consensus within the WG, and/or one of the SO/AC objects, you fall back to the AGB. We need to find a better solution, but if all attempts fail, we fall back to the AGB. => ccNSO internal review, including general meeting strategy Calls with SO/AC leadership, to discuss future leadership strategy for ICANN public meetings. 1. additional requirements for selection meeting venue? 2. how happy are we with the current format? Meeting B seems one day to short, and meeting C one day too long. Thursday the planning for ICANN61 starts. ++++ ccNSO joint meeting with the Board. (Wednesday) => scheduling of the joint ccNSO - Board meeting. very late in the process => concerns regarding latest NomCom appointment => WT5, new subsequent procedures PDP after the joint meeting with GAC, ALAC, GNSO => EPSRP. joint response. next steps adoption of overall IDN policy (further topics included in prep material distributed during the meeting) ++++ ccNSO-GNSO council meeting (Monday, lunch meeting) => update of SOP charter GNSO is working on a similar group as the SOP. (within the council) => WT5 => CCWG IG charter => CSC related topics. Byron => reviews present Steve Crocker: to be handed over during the joint meeting with the Board on Wednesday 45 min for Q&A with Board. 10 extra min potentially to be found during Q&A slot with the council, upon request of Debbie (session chair) Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org