Alejandra: This is a follow up of our discussion at the end of December 2025. Since then, the GNSO Council has adopted the charter of the PDPWG and we were asked to nominate members or a participant and if necessary an alternate. If we participate we are expected to put names forward early February 2026.

So we have to decide on a few topics today:

Whether to participate in the GNSO PDP
Participate with members or participants
How to select members.

We will discuss and take the temperature of the room on each of these topics one-by-one before going to the resolution.

Based on discussion in December last year, I have the sense that the Council leans towards participation. We discussed the benefits and counter arguments, and my take away was that in general the meeting was positive towards participation, while noting the risks.

To recap:

The benefits of participation included

Sharing ccTLD expertise in DNS abuse mitigation, supporting the multistakeholder model, and potentially contributing to reduced DNS abuse across the ecosystem.
Participation was also seen as an opportunity to educate the broader community about differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs.
ccTLDs have much lower levels of abuse and, therefore, can contribute with what has led to better results.

The drawbacks included:

The significant time commitment and resource demands,
Potential misperceptions about representation and applicability of the policy to ccTLDs.

Possible mitigations were identified, such as distributing workload among participants and clearly defining mandates to avoid misunderstandings.

Nick: opportunities and risks to get involved in gTLD policy. Historically, we would say it is none of our business. Exception here: abuse affects the whole ecosystem. There is a lot of interaction with the gTLD registries. There is no point moving abuse across places, rather remove it.

Nigel: I can think of at least one ccNSO member who would probably violently object to this. Agree with what Nick said. We should nominate 2 members.

Pablo: I agree with the summary you gave, and what Nick said. We should not shy away. I support 2 members and one alternate, or a similar alternative.

Alejandra: we will discuss in a bit

Jordan: we should offer help through this process

Alejandra: should we participate in the GNSO PDP?

Green ticks

Alejandra: we will move forward with that. Now we need to decide how to participate.

The ccNSO may choose to nominate two (2) members OR one (1) Participant

Difference mainly in expected mandate:

Members (are expected to):

Take part during deliberations and in any WG consensus calls.
Represent the view of the ccNSO, and may be called on to provide the official position of the ccNSO.

Participants:

Will be able to actively participate in and attend all WG meetings.
Are encouraged to engage in the WG deliberations throughout its lifecycle and are expected to keep up with all relevant WG deliberations to ensure they remain informed and can contribute when needed.
However, Participants do not participate in the consensus building process.

So my question is how to participate?

With two members, knowing the ccNSO does not have a position on the topics under discussion?
With one participant?
both?

Chris: that is not what we are being asked. 2 members, and a participant, and an alternate. You could have in essence 4: 2 members, 1 participant, 1 alternative.

It is not an “or”, it is an “and”.

Nigel: We do not need to decide. We could authorise “up to”. Council should not micromanage every decision

Alejandra: noted

Bart: to be clear. Up to 4 people. There is a qualitative difference between members and participants. That is the principal difference. Make it clear there is no ccNSO position, upfront.

Nick: the ccNSO does not have a formal position on GNSO policy topics. I can see ccNSO volunteers participating and moving the policy discussion forward. I want to clarify that there are formal consensus calls. Expectations from ccNSO members to clear the position? I think that would be useful. There should be a feedback mechanism. Bring wider ccNSO membership with us. Individuals might have their own perspectives. There might be reservations on specific points. Discussion around expectations and feedback mechanism

Alejandra: leadership keeps close track with appointees and provides guidance where needed. Feedback is indeed expected, not just to Council. Hence we need to draft the mandate on how things should go.

Chris: i agree with that. To answer Nick, it goes beyond that. If we decide we should have members, members are expected to contribute to the discussion and consensus call. They are on the PDP as ccNSO representatives. That is how the ccNSO sees this. My view is, very strongly, we should allow us the flexibility to be members. Members can contribute to the debate. There is flexibility as a member. You are operating as a person, but if there is a consensus call, you put forward the ccNSO position. We know what happens in this PDP, is going to be reflected in the cc-world. We need to advocate for the cc-position. We should appoint 2 members. As representatives of the ccNSO. That is important.

Alejandra: anybody against appointing members?

None

Alejandra: Final question, How to select members?

There are specific requirements for qualification of members or participants. Both members or participants (and alternates) are expected to have a level of expertise with respect to:

DNS Abuse issues,
ICANN policies and procedures,
Registry/registrar services.

Suggestion to have DASC member

Nick: yes. Even though non-DASC members might be qualified as well.

Alejandra: apart from the knowledge, there is also the time commitment. This is intense.

Nick: when the call goes out, that needs to be clear. Include ToR, time commitment, expertise.

Nigel: the Council should delegate this to DASC.

Peter: do we insist on having a community call? DASC gets the task, and ask promising candidates. People who are not formally DASC member. Time is pressing. Not enough time for a call for volunteers. Regarding formal positions: did council agree on marching orders? Abstain or come back to Council to discuss? We try to stay away, or might want to refrain from raising our voice in a consensus call

Alejandra: no opposition to having members. Contribute, also to the consensus building process, if appropriate.

Chris: they do speak on behalf of the ccNSO. Not denic, not Peter. If the ccNSO position was to abstain from expressing opinion of colour of the walls

Bart: leave it up to DASC. Bruce and Nick come up with suggested members, participant, alternate. They know the pool of people. Deadline: end January.

Nick: i can hear it loud and clear. I will talk to Bruce and check in with him. We want to do a broadcast call. DASC leadership is stepping forward. Inclusive call, broadcast out, but the outcome is likely. Important for it to be transparent.

Bart: please let us know once you spoke with Bruce. We will circulate the call tomorrow

Alejandra: see resolution, with proposed edits. “Up to 2 members, up to 1 participant, and an alternate”

Draft Resolution

Background

The ccNSO Council was requested to nominate up to 2 members or 1 participant, and 1 alternate to the GNSO PDP 1 Associated Domain Name Check. After extensive discussion during meeting ccNSO Council meetings 224 and 225, the ccNSO Council believes that the benefits of participating in this PDP for the ccTLD and broader community outweigh the potential negative impact participation could have on ccTLDs. As to the mode of participation (members or participant, and alternate), the ccNSO Council believes that the interests of the community are best served with participation of members and an alternate, however noting that the ccNSO itself does not have a view or will not hold an official position on the matters discussed in the PDP, nor could members represent the view or position of ccTLDs in general. The ccNSO Council taking into account the requirement of the charter that members and hence alternates are expected to have a level of expertise with respect to: a) DNS Abuse issues, b) ICANN policies and procedures, and c) registry/registrar services, is of the view that participants of the ccNSO DNS Abuse Committee are best positioned to participate in the GNSO PDP.

Decision

Per request of the GNSO Council the ccNSO Council decides to participate in the GNSO PDP 1 Associated Domain Name Check with two members and one alternate. The GNSO Council will be informed that the ccNSO does not have a view, nor holds on a position on the matter addressed through the PDP, nor do the members represent a view or position of ccTLDs in general. The Council requests the cNSO Domain Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) to nominate (Alternative 1: two (2) members) or (Alternative 2: one (1) participant,) and an alternate and inform the ccNSO Council as soon as feasible, and no later than 30 January 2026. The Chair of the Council is requested to inform the GNSO secretariat before 9 February 2026 of the nomination.

The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after publication.

Move? Chris

Second? Pablo

Any questions on the resolution? None

All green marks. Approved.

Thanks to Nick for joining us. Looking forward to see the results of the call for volunteers

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

3. Relevant Correspondence

4. Minutes & Action Items

a. Minutes Meeting 224

Circulated to the Council mailing list on 09 January 2026

No questions or comments, minutes are confirmed

b. Action Items

Alejandra: All action items are completed except

224-4 which is waiting on completion of the special election in the African Region.
Action item 222-02 was kept open, noting that it will be further discussed with ICANN and other SO/AC chairs. I have been informed that ICANN is taking this action item on. Suggest to close it.

Any comments? none

· Action Item 224-01

ccNSO Secretariat to change the ccNSO Council email archive to be open to the public, and allow read only subscribers to the mailing list and let the Council know when the changes have been implemented. (Completed - Council to be informed)

· Action Item 224-02

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to inform the previous and current ccTLD manager that the ccNSO membership of the manager of .ly ended. (Completed)

· Action Item 224-03

The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to inform the GRC to review the Council Selection Process Guideline, taking into account the recommendations from the Selection Process Manager. (Pending meeting GRC)

· Action Item 224-04

The ccNSO Chair is requested to inform ICANN's Secretary of the election results in accordance with section 10.4(i) of the ICANN Bylaws. (Pending adoption Election African Region)

· Action Item 224-05

The secretariat is requested to inform the leadership teams of the various working groups and committees and persons appointed and enable their participation in the respective teams. (Completed)

· Action Item 224-06

The secretariat to include the topic on “ccNSO participation in GNSO DNS Abuse PDPs” in the January 2026 Council meeting agenda. (Completed, item 18)

· Action Item 224-07

The secretariat to include the topic on “Tech Day’s interpretation service” in the January 2026 Council meeting agenda. (Completed, item 19 b)

5. Intermeeting Council Decisions (since meeting 224, December 2025)

None

6. Intermeeting Decisions Triage Committee since Council meeting 224

No meeting since Council meeting 224

UPDATES

Alejandra: Written updates - if any - are published on the wiki space for this meeting. The draft written updates for items 7, 8 and 9 are in our inboxes. In the meantime does anyone have any pressing comments?

None

Biyi: update on onboarding and mentoring initiatives. OMC met regarding the Buddy Program, and the mentoring program for newcomers. We are now defining the steps for engagement at ICANN85. There will be an informal meet-up for newcomers at ICANN85. We will look into the structure of that meeting, to ensure an effective onboarding experience. Adjustments, or rather enhancements of the Buddy Program: have mentoring reinvigorated. Further information for Council consideration by the February meeting. Mentoring program was in place in the past: see what worked, what did not. The individuals involved at the time are successful ecosystem contributors, including doing work for the ccNSO

Bart: explains the difference between the Buddy Program and the mentoring programme. The buddy program is focused on and around the icann meeting, the latter is a deep dive. Takes about half a year. The previous mentoring programme was successful, but ended due to the pandemic. Time to reinvigorate it.

Alejandra: Eyitayo was a mentee at the time. She is now our ccNSO appointee to the NomCom. Her pairing with mentor Mary Uduma was very successful

7. Update ECA & CSC (written updates)

8. Update Working Groups (written updates)

a. ccPDP4-IDN (Dormant)

b. DASC

c. GRC

d. IGLC

e. MPC

f. OMC

g. SOPC

h. Tech WG

i. TLD-OPS SC

j. Triage Committee (reported)

k. UAC

l. CIP-CCG

m. Planning Prioritization Process group

n. RZERC

o. RSS GWG

9. Update Liaisons (written updates)

a. Update ccNSO Liaison to ALAC

b. Update ccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council

10. Progress Board Consideration ccPDP4-IDN & Implementation ccPDP3

Informational

Bart:

ccPDP4-IDN

Board caucus is reviewing the staff assessment of the de-selection of IDN ccTLDs and the applicability of the review mechanism. Once completed, there will be a discussion by the full board.

ccPDP3-RM

Regarding the implementation, the icann staff has completed the planning of the implementation. Handed it over to the real implementers. ccPAIG was asked to provide some feedback. Request from staff to keep it simple.

Peter: a way forward was suggested.

Bart: one of the points was regarding allowing non pre-certified reviewers, you open up a can of worms. Draft response in the making. For discussion with icann staff

Peter: an issue we did not consider is the whole composition of the pool. Will not be used too often.

Bart: But it is an implementation question

11. Progress CCG Review of Reviews

Informational

Alejandra: see update by Chris via email to council mailing list

https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CDOR/pages/700383277/18+Dec+2025+-+Reviews+CCG+Progress+Status+Update

12. Progress “How we meet” CCG

Update.

Alejandra: note from Jodi. No additional input received to date.

13. Update Chair, Vice-chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations, Secretariat

Alejandra: Chair update.

Call with NomCom: 3 topics addressed, namely:
- ccNSO Councillor profile,
- NomCom timelines. When is it best for us to give input?
- Observation on NomCom selection process made to the Board
Outcome Conversation with Sally
- We conveyed the message to please do not forget ccTLDs in ICANN related events. Do not only focus on gTLDs
- Recommendation from the Finance WG Final report, to reach out to ccTLDS and develop long lasting relationships.

Bart: you may recall discussion about the Council mailing list:

open to observers?
who to access the archive?

Up to recently, only current councillors could access the archive. The decision was to open the archive, and allow observers. One observer joined in the meanwhile. There is no Council decision required. This is to alert you that non-Councillors and non-observers can now read the correspondence on the council mailing list. We can let you know regularly who is subscribed.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS

14. Councillor 360 review

According to the schedule (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gUaUDBeROr7nNphJJbGaxvSqI1WvvJ0emIDI8SpT-G8/edit?gid=0#gid=0) the next round of 360 reviews needs to be launched. This will include review of the following Councillors:

· NomCom - Wafa and Jajit

· ccNSO members appointed Councillors - Biyi, Jordan, Pablo, Nigel and Everton

Proposed timeline:

Start Survey 23 January

Conclude Survey: 13 February

Send result to Councillors and Chair: 19 February

Appoint Bart Boswinkel as Survey Process manager.

Remind people to provide input and be on time for NomCom input.

Everybody thinks it is useful, but we need to walk that talk: complete surveys in time. They will be sent TOMORROW.

Move? Wafa

Second? Pablo

Any questions regarding the resolution? None

Approved

Draft Resolution

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the proposed timeline to conduct the ccNSO Councillors 360 review:

· Start of Survey: 23 January 2026

· Closure of Survey: 13 February 2026

· Sending results to individual Councillors and Chair: 19 February 2026

The ccNSO Council appoints Bart Boswinkel as Survey Process manager. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. This decision becomes effective upon publication of the resolution.

15. Review IGLC Adoption terms of reference & Call for volunteers

Alejandra: According to the working group/committee adopted in the September 2025 review schedule, the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Group is subject to effectiveness and efficiency review.

Note that as always members of the IGLC are not expected to participate in the review team. This includes the Councillors

Following councilors are not a member of the IGLC:

Nigel

Biyi, Ali

Jennifer, Alejandra

* Grace, Charles and Sami, will not have taken their seats when the review starts.

Please consider participation in RT.

Draft resolution

Background

According to the scheme for review of ccNSO Committees as adopted by Council in August 2025, the effectiveness and efficiency of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee is expected to be reviewed from January 2026 to May 2026.

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopted the Terms of Reference for the effectiveness and efficiency of the IGLC.

The secretariat is requested to seek volunteers for the IGLC review as feasible to ensure the review can start in February. The Review Team should include 3-5 members of which at least 3 Councillors. Members of the Review Team are not expected to be a member of the IGLC. The volunteers are to be appointed online as soon as feasible.

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

Any questions on the topic? none

Move? Wafa

Second? Sean

All in favour

16. Appointment members, or Chairs/ Vice-chairs to committees or working groups, if any

a. Review external appointments

Alejandra: We will discuss the Roles and Responsibilities in Mumbai, in the meanwhile, there is a need to appoint fellowship mentor & member fellowship selection committee.

In the past we agreed these persons have to be Councillors.

No procedure to deal with it, suggest to ask the GRC to propose a procedure after we have reviewed the list of all external appointments and identified which positions must be fulfilled by Councillors and which are open to all, in Mumbai.

As the term of Jennifer and Pablo has ended in December 2025 need to appoint people for a new term. Both indicated willingness to continue

Suggest to appoint:

Appoint Jennifer as Fellowship Program Mentor
Appoint Pablo as member fellowship selection committee

Questions? none

Suggest to take a show of hands/green ticks. No concerns or red marks

2025 - External appointments by Council.xlsx

b. Appointment to ccNSO Committees and working groups

As usual the Council needs to agree on appointment of various persons to external groups.

Alejandra: We received no applications since last meeting (December 2025), therefor no decision needed. We will skip, and move to the next agenda item

Draft resolution

Decision

The ccNSO Council appoints the following people to the respective roles as specified:

· Members of the following committees, study groups or working groups:

o TBC

The secretariat is requested to inform the leadership teams of the various working groups and committees and persons appointed and enable their participation in the respective teams. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.

17. Adoption Selection Report: special elections African region

Joke: short report. Observations, but no comments or concerns from the community. See also regular selection process observations and previous request to GRC to review the guideline

Background

Five ccNSO Council seats with terms ending in March 2026 opened for nominations from 9–30 September 2025, with nominees required to accept their nominations by 10 October 2025.
The sole nominee from the African region did not accept the nomination, leaving that regional seat without an eligible candidate. As a result, the Council initiated a new call for nominations specifically for the African region seat, following the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council Selection Guideline, and the Council-adopted timeline. The call for nominations (Africa region only) closed on Thursday, 4 December 2025 at 23:59 UTC, and the deadline for the nominee to accept the nomination was 12 December, 23:59 UTC.

Any questions? None

Move? Wafa

Second? Pablo

Abstain: Sean (due to GRC role)

Report has been approved. Thank you all, will inform ICANN

Draft Resolution

Decision

The ccNSO Council adopts the ccNSO Council Election Process report as proposed, including its recommendations, and formally confirms the election of the following person: Grace Ingabire (AF region). The term of the elected councillor starts at the end of the ccNSO Council in Mumbai (ICANN85).

The Council congratulates the elected candidate. With the adoption of the Election Report, the Council Election Process for the AF region is now closed.

The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) is requested to review the Council Selection Process Guideline, taking into account the recommendations from the Selection Process Manager. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution promptly and also to inform the GRC. The ccNSO Chair is requested to inform ICANN's Secretary of the election results in accordance with section 10.4(i) of the ICANN Bylaws. This decision takes effect upon publication.

SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS

18. Planning for ICANN85

a. Draft ccNSO schedule

Joke runs through Block schedule

Alejandra: prep for council meeting on Saturday morning. We will discuss the Roles and Responsibilities, and instructions for Chair and Vice Chairs elections at the meeting on Thursday

b. Interpretation Tech Day

Alejandra: Tech Day WG had two requests

Stop providing interpretation services.
Flexibility around session lengths and breaks.

With regards to the second point, we discussed in December that the duration of the breaks etc. is not under control of the Council, but ICANN’s meetings team.

With regard to interpretation, regardless that the technical community, like the ccTLD community relies on English documents, does not mean they converse and participate equally in English. Interpretation helps to lower this barrier.

In December I had a feeling Council wanted to continue providing interpretation during Tech Day

Peter: requests to speak more slowly triggered this.

Can we find out how many people use the devices?

Alejandra: complicated to track. You can use the devices, or your own zoom. No stats on how many people

Joke: agree. And also: recordings.

Alejandra: but no stats available

Pablo: better to have interpretation. Vary from region to region. Depends on meeting location. Important.

Peter: Agree, it is better to have, but if resources are limited, the question is who to give priority to

Alejandra: presenters should be aware about interpretation, multi-lingual, multi-regional and multi-cultural audience.

Next steps: If you agree I’ll reply to Eberhard on behalf of Council’s to share our views on the topics raised.

Green ticks

19. Any Other Business (AOB)

None

20. Next Council Meetings

· 19 February 2026 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 226

· 12 March 2026 | ICANN85 - Mumbai, Meeting 227

· 16 April 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 228

· 21 May 2026 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 229

· 11 June 2026 | ICANN86 - Sevilla, Meeting 230

· 16 July 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 231

· 13 August 2026 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 232

· 17 September 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 233

· 22 October 2026 | ICANN87 - Muscat, Meeting 234

· 19 November 2026 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 235

· 17 December 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 236

21. Adjourn

Joke Braeken

joke.braeken@icann.org