Dear all, Please find below the notes from today’s council meeting. Best, Joke Apologies: Byron Holland, Christelle Vaval, Abdalla Omari, Debbie Monahan, Ching Chiao NOTES 1) Welcome and Apologies apologies listed in the Adobe room. no resolutions, so we are not worried about the quorum. We start today with item 16 on the agenda. 2) Minutes and Actions minutes are published. 1 still open: secretariat to send out call for volunteers regarding the GAC underserved region WG. We are waiting for further clarifications from GAC before sending it out. 3) Overview inter-meeting Council decisions None 4) ccNSO Travel Funding: ccNSO Council request to increase number travel slots proposal to increase the number of slots. from 12 slots to 26 slots. Proposal: Funding to all council members for all ICANN meetings. If the slot is not used, it can be given to the broader community. The number of seats from the other SO/ACs were increased gradually. We immediately ask for more than double, implying 1/2 million USD in addition to the current expenses. Katrina urges the drafting team to ask for a lower number at the beginning, and a more gradual increase. Nigel suggested: "it can be phased in" - to allow for a more gradual increase. Bart: council has until Tue 18 April, 17:00 UTC, to provide input regarding the current draft. please circulate comments on the council mailing list, so that the drafting team can incorporate them. 5) Update Approval Action Process: the ccNSO as Decisional Participant 2 related topics: - ccNSO preparations for approval action Forum in Jo'burg - EC administrations' preparations for this forum Once the Board makes the formal adoption of the bylaw process, we need to reach out again to the community. Archive and document in what we do as decisional participant as we exercise our powers. Draft guideline circulated with the GRC. consensus expected prior to next month's council meeting. Formal request submitted to arrange the Forum in Johannesburg. https://community.icann.org/x/39HRAw Please also see: https://ccnso.icann.org/decisional-participant/approval-actions.htm [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_decisio...> Katrina: what worries me, is that after my email to the community, people started to express their support to the proposed changes. This is an issue, because first there is announcement of something that triggers the approval action. Now we have a public comment period. Then the comments are consolidated in a staff report. And then the ICANN Board takes a decision. EC administration asks to organise the Community Forum, and then there is a 21-day period, during which the council needs to support/reject/abstain from the proposal. We need to hear from the community during the 21 day period, and not now, because the proposal might change. 6) CSC charter review We spoke to RySG during the CPH meeting, and came up with a schedule. It was agreed to have a lightweight review. 3 members from ccNSO, and 3 from GNSO. * does the timeline look ok? no comments * team? Byron and Jay cannot be members on this review team, even though they are advisors. Should we issue a call for volunteers among the council, or the community? We need to think about this, and decide soon. 7) CCWG IG updated charter We had some discussions around this in HYD, and less than a week before the CPH meeting we received the updated charter. - the group is very active, but from the emails on the list, we see there are not very active ccNSO participants. Should we remain a chartering organisation? Yes. But the lack of active participants from the ccTLD community raises questions. How can we improve participation? should we issue a call for volunteers? probably yes, many ccTLDs active in this area. How to ensure that the issues that we address to this group, are indeed addressed? is the process properly reflected in the charter? there are some doubts there. Suggested is to write down the questions, and ask Young-eum to talk to the WG and to present them with those questions. The charter probably needs to be adjusted to address those issues. 8) Limited scope RDS (Whois 2) review and nomination of members review team. nomination of members to the review team. several people expect the support from the ccNSO, to endorse them. There are somethings going on in parallel. eg. WHOIS PDP by GNSO. There is a discussion on the scope of the WHOIS RDS review. To date, no decision has been taken. We do not know the scope, do not know how long it takes, and we do not know what the required skill set is for those that serve on the review team. GDPR will come to force in May 2018 and many ccTLD registries and registrars have to implement requirements of this GDPR. This will affect WHOIS.2 options: 1. read the statements of those seeking our endorsement, and select the candidates. 2. write a letter to the ICANN Board that we want the scope to be defined first. We could list the reasons, why we believe the ccTLDS will experience problems when the EU regulation (the GDPR) will come into force. 2.a. we defer nominating people until the scope is clear 2.b. we withdraw our participation at the moment, and join later. option 2 seems the more pragmatic one. Bart and Katrina will draft the letter to the Board. Will be sent to the council too. 9) ccNSO Liaison to ALAC language from bylaws. Liaisons do not become member of the council, and cannot vote. In case of ALAC, they do not speak about the exchange of liaisons. However, Wafa is a councillor, before she became a liaison. This has not been discussed yet with ALAC. Could be a way to proceed. Katrina would rather prefer to stick to the principle in the bylaw. What do others think? Katrina to reach out to chair of ALAC, and ask his opnion on this. Wafa is wondering why the ccNSO does not have a liaison with the GAC? Katrina: will have to be addressed at one point, but maybe not today. 10) Roles and responsibilities of Councillors and Work plan after the meeting in CPH, the GRC decided to revise the guideline on roles and responsabilities (e.g. elections not properly regulated) roles and responsabilities assignment was deferred to this meeting, but was supposed to be addressed in CPH, first meeting of the year. Secretariat asked for help: table with all meetings, and what needs to be done when. normally we reach out to people to fill the roles. It was not clear whether to include the chair and vice chair elections, and document it in the guideline. To be proposed to council before the next meeting. Council committee page on the wiki needs to be updated. Some rotation needed, to ensure workload is evenly distributed. 11) PDP update secretariat issued call for volunteers. We sent email to ALAC, SSAC, GAC, GNSO to become participants (individuals can become participants) Asked the GAC chair for initial advise, until Jo'burg. Still to do: We will publish the issue report for public comment. 12) Council Updates 12.1 Chair Update 12.2 Vice-Chair Update 12.3 Councilors Update 12.4 Regional Organizations Update 12.5 Secretariat update work items by secretariat were shared for informational purposes. 13) WG update 13.1 Programme WG ICANN59 is a policy forum. 4-days. focussed on outreach and policy development. Block Schedule shared by Alejandra, with high level overview of the ccNSO sessions. 5 proposals for cross-community sessions were submitted earlier today. Tuesday the next planning call with other SO/AC leaders will take place. ccNSO Members Meeting Tue & Wed: from 09:00 - 14:45, followed by cross-community sessions. Cocktail on Tue. Council F-2-F meeting. suggested to have it on Thursday morning (09:00 am) Community Forum to be organised by ICANN ORG, preferably as early into the meeting as can be. This block schedule is purely a proposal for the ccNSO sessions. 13.2 GRC update currently working on: - council elections guideline. to reflect CPH discussion - approval action guideline 13.3 SOP WG update 13.4 TLD-OPS update 14) Liaison Updates 14.1 GNSO Update (written update to follow). 14.2 ALAC Update (written update to follow). 15) AOB proposal for ccNSO review deferral. Should we submit a comment or more detailed explanation why we think it should not take place according to the timeline? no comments needed, according to Stephen and Peter (.be) 16) Next meetings - 18 May 2017, 12.00 UTC - June 2017 (f-2-f) majority supports option for Thursday 29 June, 09.00 local time (block 1) Thank you. Bye! 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