The Council Chair is requested to draft a proposed meeting request on behalf of Council and the SOPC leadership team, inviting Xavier Calvez, ICANN SVP Planning & Chief Financial Officer and Kurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist, ICANN President and Chief Executive Officer, to discuss concerns regarding the recently adopted ICANN Budget. (Completed)

● Action item 217-02

The Council Chair is requested to reach out to Greg DiBiase (GNSO Chair) to have a discussion post ICANN83 regarding the deferral of the 3rd CSC Review. (Completed)

● Action item 217-03

The Council Chair is requested to reach out to Beth Bacon (RySG Chair) to jointly organize the selection of CSC members, discuss the legal questions and the amendment of the CSC Charter. (Completed)

● Action item 217-04

The Council Chair is requested to reach out to the CSC to inform them about the ccNSO outreach to the GNSO and RySG Chairs. (Completed)

● Action item 217-05

The ccNSO Council Chair is requested to discuss the 360 review results with the reviewed Councillors individually. (Completed)

● Action item 217-06

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to add the approach regarding the next round of 360 reviews to the agenda of pre-ICANN83 Council prep meeting. (Completed)

● Action Item 217-07

The ccNSO Secretariat and the former PGA WG chair are requested to draft the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study groups on IANA Public Records and Disaster Recovery. The ToR should be ready for adoption by Council at ICANN83. (Completed)

● Action Item 217-08

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to close the Policy Gap Analysis working group on 30 May 2025. (To be completed)

● Action Item 217-09

The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the PGA WG Final Report as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective 7 days after publication.(Completed)

● Action Item 217-10

The secretariat is requested to enable Nigel Roberts to join the ccNSO Council mailing list, effective immediately (Completed)

● Action Item 217-11

The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the Council Election Report for the European Region as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective upon publication. (Completed)

● Action Item 217-12

The secretariat is requested to launch a call for volunteers to join the MPC Review Team as soon as possible, to seek members for the review team before the start of ICANN83. (To be done)

● Action Item 217-13

The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the MPC Review ToR as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective upon publication. (Completed)

● Action item 217-14

Regarding the appointment of the members to the various working groups and committees, the secretariat is requested to inform the respective working groups and enable the appointees to fulfil their role. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. (Completed)

● Action item 217-15

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to launch a call for volunteers for one (1) ccNSO Appointee to the new ICANN UA Expert Group. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. The resolution becomes effective upon publication. (Completed)

● Action item 217-16

The ccNSO Council Chair is requested to welcome LK Domain Registry as a member of the ccNSO. (Completed)

● Action item 217-17

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to update the ccNSO website to include LK Domain Registry as a member of the ccNSO. The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the new ccNSO member as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. The resolution becomes effective upon publication. (Completed)

● Action Item 217-18

The ccNSO Council Chair is requested to submit the ccNSO Council response to the How We Meet request for comments latest on 19 May.(Completed)

● Action Item 217-19

The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the ccNSO Council response to the How We Meet request for comments as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. The resolution becomes effective upon publication.(Completed)

● Action Item 217-20

The secretariat is requested to draft a proposed Council response to the request for public comments on the CSC IANA SLA change process, for adoption by Council at ICANN83. (Completed)

● Action Item 217-21

The ccNSO Council is requested to review the proposed Council Election Guideline. The ccNSO membership should be given the opportunity to review and comment as well. Unless there are any major concerns raised, the revised guideline will be adopted by Council at ICANN83 (Completed)

4. Intermeeting Council Decisions (since meeting 217, May 2025)

· Support ccNSO Council submission SLA Change process

Serves as background for item 20

5. Intermeeting Decisions Triage Committee since Council meeting 217

There were no intermeeting decisions by the ccNSO Triage Committee.

UPDATES

Questions or comments? If not, take items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 as read

6. Update ECA, IFRT & CSC (written updates)

7. Update Working Groups (written updates)

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

8. Update Liaisons (written updates)

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

9. Update ccNSO Website redesign

According to current planning, the website will go live in December 2025, depending on progress of developing new content for the new website.

10. Progress Board Consideration ccPDP4-IDN

11. Update Triage WG

Introduction of draft ccNSO portfolio FY 26-27

Overview of work items, resourcing & and need for prioritization

Bart: see gantt charts. Overwhelming. 4 charts, 1 for each goal.

policy related matters
ccnso platform function
Icann focused work items
foundational activities

The grey areas related to the study groups. What is coloured is the implementation work

See resolution regarding ccPAIg

What is in purple, is planned

See discussion during next meeting. What is currently in grey, will also influence the work

Chris: It is a very detailed general overview.

The headline is: we have a lot to do, and not enough people to do it all. We need to prioritise and get people to work. Suggestion is to do 1 study group.

Bart: even 1 is a struggle.

Chris: There is not just us, but also staff. More work coming up in triage.

Alejandra: comments?

Jordan: regarding the study groups. Prioritise various pieces of work. Is it more important to do both Study groups, and drop sth else? When will you make that decision

Chris: i hope you join the next Triage committee meeting.

Bart: intention is, triage comes up with the recommendation by the July Council meeting.

Noting also the availability of staff, expertise needed for the reviews, and holiday season

Alejandra: Triage will look into it, and have sth by the July meeting. If needed, we can schedule an extraordinary meeting

12. Update Chair, Vice-chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations and Secretariat

a. Meeting with ICANN Finance

Alejandra: SO/AC leaders and Councillors has a meeting with Xavier and Kurtis. Major point was the communication. Only SOPC leaders were aware of the changes.

After that meeting SOPC had a meeting with ICANN Planning, where further details were provided. AS you may have noted, Xavier did send a note to the SO and ACs explaining the changes again, and committing to look at process to improve lines of communication

Questions or comments? none

b. Information session with the ICANN Board

Alejandra: Last Sunday Jordan, and I had a meeting with the Board, to introduce the ccNSO, and explain what we do, how we do it, and our limitations. Some of you were in the room, and on-line.

Jordan: knowledge of ccnso was not that high. ICANN onboarding. We need a ccNSO onboarding 1 hour. Good to organise that after each AGM for incoming board members.

Chris: I am fine with that in principle. Logistically, let’s prepare a document. Give a starting point, and then a session for Q&A

Alejandra: agree

Nigel: agree with Jordan. NomCom appointed board members. I was involved in their onboarding. Extremely important that we do this. Seen the nature of the questions asked. Assumptions that all ccTLDs are owned by gvt. Secondly, there was the suggestion to have contracts for all ccTLDs

Biyi: i attended remotely. I was amazed by the knowledge gap.

Suggestion to organise a session, look for a slot. Have a doc ready too.

Chris: it is good they said it, and we corrected it. Let’s have a process to brief them next time around. We do not have a major problem.

Olga: curious, why the NomCom selected board members do not know about the ccNSO. I am surprised. They need to provide the right answers to the questions. The info to NomCom perhaps.

Alejandra: myths regarding ccTLDs

Bart: new Board members are briefed. Overwhelming amount of briefing materials. ccTLDs are not high on their priority list.

Questions asked after foundational elements were presented about the ccNSO. Something to keep in mind, if you want to prepare briefing materials

c. SO/AC Roundtable, including discussion on “review of reviews”

First and as a heads-up, we will spend some time on this topic. The last two weeks the discussions around this topic have become front and center of broader community discussion. So I’ll bring you up to speed of what happened and the role we have played. From my end I want to use this part of the meeting to bring you up to speed, and that we agree on a direction of travel going forwards.

AS you will recall, our involvement started in Seattle during ICANN82, when continuation of the Pilot Holistic review and continuous improvement framework was on the table. As a reminder the continuous improvement framework is intended to replace the organizational reviews.

In the context of continuation of the Pilot Holistic review and Continuous Improvement work the question emerged whether or not ATRT 4 should be launched. Tripti and other members of the Board expressed their concern that launching ATRT4, and then all the other reviews would completely bog down the community, ICANN org, and the Board. So the questions arose around purpose, need for all the reviews and timing: the “review of review”.

At the Council meeting we agreed to send a letter to the Board in support of such a “review of reviews” https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/reynoso-to-sinha-15apr25-en.pdf

Our main points were to continue with the CIP framework to replace the organizational reviews in time and 2.

Prior to starting a new cycle of reviews, look at the purpose, scope, frequency and efforts involved to conduct all reviews.

To achieve this goal, we suggested that the ICANN community start the dialogue at ICANN84 in Oman, and close the dialogue at or around ICANN85, the Mumbai meeting.

Moving forward in time again, as you may have noted the Board decided at its meeting on 19 May 2025 to defer ATRT4 and other reviews until after the conclusion of the “review of reviews” and start that process.

https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-special-meeting-of-the-icann-board-19-05-2025-en

With this in mind I started to develop a roadmap on how to organize and manage such a process. I believe we need such a roadmap sooner rather than later , as ICANN84 and 85 are around the corner, and knowing that in July and August a lot of people enjoy a well derived holiday.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RqXd7wTWWTtTLvtTp5lxMScR_dWzXWSyG-19tkGAvcQ/edit?tab=t.0

Following the Board webinar on the reviews on Wednesday 28 May, I felt it necessary to share this roadmap with my fellow chair to maintain momentum for the review of reviews.

As you may also know some communities have expressed a concern in deferring ATRT4 and believe that an ATR can do the job. Breaching the Bylaw for ATRT4 is a bad signal especially in the times of WSIS +20. This was expressed by some of the attendees on the webinar, and you may have also seen some of the articles on this matter.

So with this in mind the SO/AC chairs had two meetings here in Prague. The first one on Sunday, when it became very clear that we as ccNSO leadership are clearly in favour, and ALAC clearly opposed and wanted to stick to ATRT4. All the others did not express a clear view

Yesterday morning we had a second meeting, where we discussed a path forward. The outcome of that meeting I shared with you and others at the end of the ccTLD news session.

Jordan: regarding the disagreement. Everyone agrees the review system needs to be reviewed. Has not been done in a decade. Our view that review should not be done through the ATRT vehicle. There are breaches of the bylaws. Tidy up the breach? No-one is trying to sweep anything under the carpet.

Chris: awakening during yesterday’s morning meeting. Adjust the ATRT3. Unless you do it, in accordance with the bylaws, it is not an ATRT. moving away from ATRT4. GNSO Council thinks the current suggestion is acceptable. GAC leadership agrees as well. At large still considering. Fundamental question: do you do the 2nd bit? Do you do the emergency bylaw change? The roadmap is timely, fine. Do you do the emergency bylaw, or not? There is accountability both ways. Not secret. Board is prepared to accept that the deferral of the bylaws is a way to do this. Legal advice. Their responsibility. That is where we are at the moment

Alejandra: Some community members, including some of our own community, expressed that changing the bylaws, to end inconsistencies in the bylaw and reality, may be a worse solution than living with the inconsistencies.

Any preference regarding the way foreward?

Chris: suggestion. We agreed the review of the reviews needs to happen. The bylaw change, we could leave it to the others to whom it matters most. We could have a position, but we do not have to.

Jordan: i have heard bth ways. When you break your own rules, how do you fix it? Either way, no-one will sue us. No massive legal risk. But the impact politically? Acknowledge the fault and tweak the rule, or acknowledge the fault and adjust the approach

Peter: moving target in terms of positions. What have the incoming liaisons to say? Not always clear what hats people wear

We should not break the constitution, so let’s change it! Fixing the break by making it ok, but not legitimate.

Chris: will speak in favour of bylaw change. You acknowledge there is an issue. Deferral while you do this. Is that a problem? There is on key point: the original suggestion for the bylaw change came from the GAC. If the GAC accepts that, the cover is there for the GAC to say it is an acceptable way forward. If they do proceed, that gives us the cover

Jordan: different views from different GAC leaders. No GAC consensus view. Are reviews implemented the way we intended it? Bylaw would not delete the reviews, or preempt what came out of the review. Timeline limitations. This is a short-term fix. If the community cannot do the review of the reviews, we need to come back to where we are today. Not changing the rules to sort yourself out, it takes a timeline pause. Non trivial step. Takes 4 to 6 months.

You do it in parallel, the review.

Alejandra: Now looking at going forward, we have a few options:

Execute the Roadmap, with Bylaw change or without bylaw change

Try to use ATRT4 to execute roadmap, with risk that scope and timing is not focused

Run ATRT 4 and roadmap in parallel: Results of Roadmap feed into ATRT4

Do you agree? Green marks

The Council decided that it did not have a firm view about whether a bylaws change should be supported or not.

d. Informational meeting GNSO chair and chair RySG

Monday Bart and I had a meeting with the chair of the GNSO, Registry stakeholders and chair of the CSC.

The goal was to align the various actions with respect to the CSC, ranging from selection of membership to change of the Bylaw to adjust the frequency of the CSC reviews. We will discuss some of these matters under item 20 of today’s agenda. As you can imagine, the conversation regarding the CSC will be continued

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS

13. Update & adoption Council Selection Guideline & Timeline and appointment Selection Process Manager

a. Update and adoption of ccNSO Council Selection Guideline

Draft Resolution

Background

Following the special European Council selection process, the ccNSO Council requested the Guideline Review Committee to review and update the ccNSO Council Selection procedure, amongst other to take into account the procedure that evolved over time when a Councillor (elect/ candidate) changes affiliation.

In updating the process, the GRC has also taken into account the recent test of members voting for Board Seat 12 (section 7.1 of the proposed Guideline) .

Council was requested to review the draft Guideline, as well as the membership.

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed ccNSO Council Election Process guideline as proposed [with exception of section 7.1 on publication of voters]. The ccNSO secretariat is requested to publish the adopted guideline as soon as possible. This Guideline becomes effective 7 days after publication.

Peter: regarding 7.1. We discussed it before the board seat elections

Alejandra: know who has not voted yet, and reach out to motivate participation

Chris: danger is not to encourage people to vote, but to encourage people not to vote for a certain person. You facilitate that and pressure countries. Good there is an encouragement process, but the danger is that you allow pressure. Have an internal process? The secretariat could be contacting people. I am uncomfortable with the publishing. It is a challenge.

Nigel: discomfort, also regarding the comments just made. Elections are fundamental to transparency. Decisions regarding guidelines are often made ad hoc. I have experience on political campaigning in UK. different in other jurisidcation.

The interference peter referred to is acceptable campaigning here

Bart: GRC came up with the proposal.

Alejandra: campaigning happens anyhow. Up to each emissary to make up their mind.

The guideline was presented to community. No feedback received.

Peter: we all have different backgrounds regarding elections. Publishing the list after events is ok.

Stephen: comparing apples to oranges. Elections are one-day affairs. This is a multi-week affair. Ability to influence countries.

Chris: not ok to published who voted what

Alejandra: decide to vote on guideline, with the exception of 7.2. That is excluded.

Move? Jenifer

Second? Olga

Bart: no reference to that section on the guideline when published

Sean: abstain

b. Adoption Timeline 2026 Council Election & Appointment ccNSO Council Selection Process Manager

Alejandra; Next is the launch of the ccNSO Council election

This will happen under the Guideline as just adopted (assuming it will be adopted)

Any questions re timeline?

Move? Jordan

Second? Stephen

Background - proposed timelines. 2025 Timeline: Nomination Seat 11 & Council Elections

Draft Resolution

Background

In March 2026 the term of the following Councillors ends: Molehe Wesi (AF-region), Ai-Chin Lu (AP- region), Chris Disspain (EU-region), Alejandra Reynoso (LAC-region), and, Stephen Deerhake (NA-region). To initiate the selection process and allow a question and answer session and elections, the Council is expected to adopt a timeline and appoint the Selection Process Manager. To avoid confusion, the scheduled selection process will be conducted under the Guideline as adopted, under the assumption this Guideline becomes effective 7 days after publication.

The proposed timeline was circulated separately. The main dates are:

Nomination period: 9 September - 30 September 2025
Q&A candidates during ICANN84: 25-30 October 2025
Election period, first round: 2 - 16 December 2025

In addition the Council needs to appoint the Election Process Manager

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed timeline for theccNSO Council election. The ccNSO Council appoints Joke Braeken, ccNSO secretariat, as Council Selection Process Manager. The scheduled selection process will be conducted under the ccNSO Council Selection Process Guideline that was adopted under item 13 a of the agenda of meeting 218, under the assumption this Guideline becomes effective 7 days after publication of that decision. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. The decision becomes effective upon publication.

14. Timeline Board Seat 11 Nomination Process and appointment Nomination Process Manager

Alejandra: Next is the launch of the Board Seat 11 Nomination , Although far out we have to take into account that the person has to be nominated by April 2026, potential members election, the Q&A in Oman, and the duration of background checkl

Move? Olga

Second? Everton

Any comments? None

Abstain: Nigel, Sean

Approved.

Draft Resolution

Background

The term of the ccNSO appointee to Board Seat 11 ends at the ICANN87, the 2026 AGM (17-22 October 2026). The nomination process needs to be fully concluded by April 2026. As the ccNSO nomination process includes a background check and question and answers session, and possibly an election by the members. The ccNSO Council is expected to adopt the timeline for the Board Seat 11 nomination process, which was circulated before the meeting, and appoint the Nomination Process Manager.

The main dates of the time

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed timeline for Board Seat 11 Nomination Process as circulated to the Council, and requests the secretariat to publish it as soon as possible to inform the community accordingly. The process is open for candidates from the AF, AP, EU and LAC region.

The ccNSO Council appoints Joke Braeken, ccNSO Secretariat, as the Nomination Process Manager. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.

15. Council 360 Review

Next round of reviews - According to the agreed upon schedule the 360 reviews of the following Councillors are scheduled for July 2025: Molehe Wesi, Ai-Chin Lu, Stephen Deerhake, Chris Disspain, Alejandra Reynoso. This is a second round for these Councillors, the first one was in the February-March 2024 timeframe.

Question: do we want to continue with the review?

I have spoken with some of you, can you tell if the review was of any value?

Chris: very useful. Board does this too. But equally hard to get them to respond

Olga: very useful indeed! I could adjust my working methods to the ways of the ccNSO. It helps me to do my job better. It does not take long

Move? Sean

Second? Peter

Questions? None

approved

Draft Resolution

Decision

The ccNSO Council appoints Bart Boswinkel as Feedback Process Manager for the July 2025 Council 360 feedback process of the following Councillors: Molehe Wesi, Ai-Chin Lu, Stephen Deerhake, Chris Disspain, Alejandra Reynoso. The Process will be launched on 1 July 2025 and remains open until 18 July 2025. After closure of the survey, the Chair of the Council, and in case of the 360 review of the Chair of the Council both the vice-chairs, will meet with the Councillor subject of the review individually. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.

Alejandra: please complete the surveys for the next round!!

16. Adoption Terms of Reference Study Group Disaster Recovery

Alejandra: We agreed on the need for a Study Group Disaster Group with the adoption of the Final Report of the PGA WG.

Jordan and the secretariat have developed the terms and they were shared with you.

Jordan: 2 topics

Disaster recovery
Iana public records

Even if we adopt the ToR, no decision yet regarding when to kick them off

Bart: working method more or less the same as the PGA.

Alejandra: As you may have noted the resolution does not include a date to launch the call for volunteers.

This was done deliberately, pending the discussion of overall priorities of the ccNSO. We will most likely have two major projects we MUST DO : clarification Review mechanism and review of reviews, we need to be careful with resourcing, and we will first to have our discussion in July on the priorities

Move? Wafa

Second? Olga

Any questions? None

All in favour

Draft Resolutions

Background

In May 2025, the Policy Gap Working Group recommended the ccNSO Council to establish a Study Group to explore and advise to the Council on the role of IANA, if any, with respect to disaster recovery of ccTLDs.

The rationale for this recommendations was:

· There is no current role for IANA, but participants seem interested in exploring this.

· Because there is no current role, there is no existing policy to have to account for - a relatively “blank page” study can occur.

There is significant public interest in ccTLDs being resilient and available even when disaster strikes, so discerning whether IANA has a role in this can help with ICANN’s overall support of a stable and secure Internet. 

Following the recommendation of the PGA, the ccNSO Council decided to set-up a Study Group as suggested, and requested the chair of the PGA WG and secretariat to draft terms of Reference for the Study Group. The proposed Terms of Reference were circulated to Council.

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the Terms of Reference for the Study Group Disaster Recovery. The date to launch the call for volunteers will be decided by Council at a later stage to take into account prioritization of the ccNSO work items, and the related adoption of the ccNSO 26-27 Portfolio of activities. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective 7 days after publication.

17. Adoption Terms of Reference IANA Public Records Study Group

Any questions? None

Move? Stephen

Second? Jordan

All in favour

Draft resolution

Background

In May 2025, the PGA WG recommended the ccNSO Council to establish a Study Group to explore and advise the ccNSO Council on:

· The purpose of IANA public records

· The expected accuracy of the IANA public records

· The enforcement and/or graduated compliance options

The rationale for this recommendations is:

· The quality of the data in the IANA records is assumed to be a matter of significant public and community interest - it is to everyone’s benefit for this data to be accurate and up to date.

· How to keep the data accurate and up-to-date will generate consideration of steps to be taken when it is not, and such consideration will help inform the future consideration of other issues. In other words, it is a foundational discussion that helps deal with other matters more efficiently later.

· This is the issue that in an operational sense gives IANA most concern, and so dealing with it first will help IANA be more efficient.

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the Terms of Reference for the IANA Public Records Study Group. The date to launch the call for volunteers will be decided by Council at a later stage to take into account prioritization of the ccNSO work items, and the related adoption of the ccNSO 26-27 Portfolio of activities. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after publication.

18. Closure ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG & Call for volunteers ccNSO Policy Implementation Assistance Group review Mechanism (ccPAIG RM)

We have now reached point of the addition agenda item

Closure of the ccPDP3 RM WG and closure of the overall ccPDP3

Any questions or comments?

Biyi: thanking all in the WG, who made sure the PDP came through. Just a big thanks

Alejandra: fully agree.

Move? Stephen

Second? Sean

Any other comments? None

Decide by acklamation

Thanks to Stephen. Great job, now officially done.

Stephen: privilege to chair this WG during the many meetings. Thanks to the WG members. I just herded the cats. Thanks to our secretariat staff. They did brilliant work. And thanks to Bernie Turcotte for his word smithing. I counted how many days the board considered the RM. it took them 25 months. Thanks for your confidence in my mgmt of the WG. i am really glad it is done.

a. Closure ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG and update of the policy overview

Draft Resolution

The Board directed ICANN org to first obtain clarification of all necessary parts of the policy recommendations including from the ccNSO Policy Advice Implementation Group (ccPAIG), which will result in a detailed implementation plan. So there is an expectation that the ccNSO launches the first ccPAIG.

As you may recall we have developed an outline on the role and responsibilities of such a group some time ago, and this will be the first time we use it.

Olga: can nomcom volunteers join?

Bart: hope that former WG members can join. Councillors that were involved in the clarification process. Goals it to complete well before the Oman meeting. Expectation that you understand the discussions. Hence the limitation

Move? Ali

Second? Stephen

Abstain? Nigel

Background

At its meeting on 8 June 2025, the ICANN Board adopted the ccNSO Policy on the Review Mechanism for specific decision on delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs ( https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-08-06-2025-en) . With the adoption of the policy, the purpose of the ccPDP3 RM WG has been achieved.

Further, as a result of the adoption, the ccNSO proposed policy has become a standing policy, and this needs to be reflected in the overview of policies, procedures and practices that was adopted by Council at its May 2025 meeting.

Decision

The ccNSO Council closes the ccPDP3 Review Managing Working Group, and requests the secretariat to archive all material for future reference. The ccNSO Council wholeheartedly thanks the working group for its hard work and patience, and especially thank its chair Stephen Deerhake and vice-chair Eberhard Lisse, and acknowledge the hard work and contributions of Bernard Turcotte.

In addition, the Council requests the secretariat to update the overview of policies, procedures and practices, and publish the updated version of the overview.

The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.

b. Call for volunteers ccNSO Policy Implementation Assistance Group review Mechanism (ccPAIG RM)

The Board has adopted the ccNSO Policy review mechanism at its 8 June 2025 meeting, the implementation of the policy will need to be detailed. The Board directed ICANN org to first obtain clarification of all necessary parts of the policy recommendations, including seeking clarification, where appropriate, from the ccNSO Policy Advice Implementation Group (ccPAIG), which will result in a detailed implementation plan.

The ccNSO has developed an outline for such a group. Accordingly, former members of the WG are explicitly invited to participate as well as others. One of the ccNSO Councillors is expected to be liaison between the group and the Council

The role and tasks of the group are described in the outline:

https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/outline-ccnso-policy-implementation-assistance-process-21sep23-en.pdf .

Draft Resolution

Decision

In accordance with the Outline Policy Implementation Assistance process, the ccNSO Council requests the secretariat to launch a call for volunteers for the ccNSO Policy Implementation Assistance Group, targeting members of the ccNSO PDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group and (former) Councillors involved in the clarification process regarding the review mechanism. The call should be launched as soon as possible. The secretariat is also requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.

19. Appointment members or chairs/vice chairs to committees and working groups, if any

Move? Olga

Second? Everton

Any questions? None

All in favour

Draft Resolution

Decision

The following person are appointed:

Eberhard Lisse (.na), at the nomination of the members of Tech WG, as chair of the Tech WG;
Sami Mohamed Ali (.bh), following the call for volunteers and following the ccNSO selection procedure, as member of the Universal Acceptance Expert Group

20. CSC related matters

Alenadra: council needs to make selection. Not CSC

Questions regarding the decision? None

Move? Sean

Second? Everton

a. Selection of ccNSO appointed member and alternate

b. Coordination selection RySG & approval full slate of CSC membership

As part of the selection process, the ccNSO Council is expected to coordinate its selection of members with the selection of the members appointed by the RySG. The Council may task and mandate the CSC Selection committee to coordinate the selection with RySG and GNSO Council.

The ccNSO is expected to appoint one (1) member to the CSC, term starting 1 October 2025. Frederico Neves will step down and is no longer eligible as he has served three(3) consecutive terms.

Erwin Lansing has recently been appointed as alternate.

The council needs to set a timeline for the selection process, and appoint the selection process manager (Claudia Ruiz). Applicable Guideline: ccNSO Appointment Procedure, sections 5.1 and 8 (https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/guidelines-ccnso-appointees-version-1-procedures-22mar21-en.pdf)

Timeline:

Timeline Customer Standing Committee member selection process 2025

Date	Action	Notes or comments
24 June 2024	Call for Expression of Interest	2-year term, to commence on 1 October AP, AF, EU, LAC
15 July 2024	Application period closes – 12:00 UTC
16 – 23 July	Council selection period	All Councillors are expected to participate in the selection process, unless a Councillor is nominated
25 July	Voting / selection sent to Council
Within 10 days	Council designees to consult with RySG to coordinate the full slate of members of the CSC
	Inform candidates of Council selection
8 August	Notify Customer Standing Committee project manager
Mid - August	ccNSO Council designees & GNSO Councils to approve full slate	Needs to be completed by mid-September 2025.

Draft Resolution

Decision

The ccNSO Council appoints Claudia Ruiz as the CSC Selection Process Manager and adopts the timeline as proposed for the selection of the newly to be appointed ccNSO member and alternate on the Customer Standing Committee. The Council requests Claudia to launch the call for volunteers at the time foreseen in the schedule and in accordance with the mechanism in the Guideline: Procedure for ccNSO Appointees.

The ccNSO Council also confirms that one of the candidates who will not be selected as Member of the CSC, will be requested to become the alternate for the ccNSO appointed Members on the ccNSO.

The ccNSO Council also confirms that the CSC selection committee is composed of the following Councillors: Molehe Wesi, Yiankang Yao, Peter Koch, Jennifer Lopez, Pablo Rodriguez, Olga Cavalli, and Jaijit Bhattacharya. The committee is mandated by the Council to consult and coordinate the selection of members of the CSC with the RySG and approve the full slate of membership together with the GNSO Council.

The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. The resolution becomes effective upon publication. Finally, the secretariat is requested to inform the community as soon as possible on the upcoming CSC member and alternate nomination and selection process.

c. Deferral 3^rd CSC Effectiveness Review

Questions? None

Move? Olga

Second? Wafa

Question re decision? None

All in favour

In August 2024, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils deferred the 3^rd CSC Effectiveness review pending implementation of the recommendations of the 2^nd Review. Recently further steps regarding implementation of these recommendations were made, including a series of questions for the ccNSO Council. Suggestion is to defer the 3^rd Effectiveness review for one year pending implementation of the recommendations.

Draft Resolution

Background

The 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review was due to start in October 2024, three (3) years after the start of the 2nd Effectiveness review. In August 2024 the ccNSO Council decided to defer the 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review, and to revisit this decision in August 2025. Rationale for deferral was, firstly not all recommendations from 2nd review team were implemented, and secondly, the second Review was concluded in April 2023, with the adoption of the Final Report by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, 1.5 years before the next review had to start.

As follow-up the Council received a letter from ICANN on the necessary Bylaw and Charter changes to implement the recommendations. The Bylaw changes are fundamental Bylaw changes, implying they will need to be approved by the Empowered Community and it will not be completed by October 2025.

Decision

As the reasons for deferral are still relevant, and after discussing possible deferral with the GNSO Council leadership, it is suggested to defer the 3rd CSC Effectiveness and revisit this decision in one year (June 2026). The Council requests its chair to - jointly with the chair of the GNSO Council - inform the chair of the ICANN Board of Directors that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will defer defining the method on how the 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review will be conducted. The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution as soon as possible, and this resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after its publication.

SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS

21. ICANN83

Skipped in interest of time

a. Joint session with RySG

b. Noteworthy from other sessions

22. Any Other Business (AOB)

none

23. Next Council Meetings

· 17 July 2025 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 219

· 21 August 2025 | 12:00 UTC (Meeting 220)

· 18 September 2025 | 21:00 UTC (Meeting 221)

· 30 October 2025 | time TBC, Meeting 222 (ICANN84)

· 20 November 2025 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 223

· 18 December 2025 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 224

24. Thank you and Adjourn

On behalf of the ccNSo want to thank EURID and NIC.CZ for a wonderful, heartwarming ccNSO Cocktail

In addition I want to thank NIC.CZ as the local host and for setting such a high standard.

I also want to thank volunteers, all involved in the sessions, ICANN staff, tech staff, interpreters etc.

Joke Braeken

joke.braeken@icann.org

Read more about the ccNSO Program at ICANN83:

https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDTCw