Dear All, Please find below some high-level notes taken during the ccNSO Council prep. session earlier today, Sunday, 12:15 – 13:45 CET [Hall B4.2] Best, Joke Agenda: 1. Main points agenda upcoming week Welcome by the chair Apologies: Byron, Debbie, Abibu, Christelle (remote), Peter Van Roste (will join later) 1.1. PDP Would be good if we could start it here, and start a call for volunteers among the community members Nigel: volunteers are more than welcome Issue report prepared by issue manager with feedback from the legal department Bart: If you launch a PDP, you agree that the issues have been defined. There is a recommendation to launch a PDP, and the additional question: to launch 1 or 2 PDPs. The recommendation is to launch 1 PDP, and 2 WGs. There is also advise to how/when launch the second WG. Sequentially, and partially in parallel. This way you will be able to catch up some time in the whole process. The full PDP may be ready by mid 2019. This is an estimate. That is a positive scenario. Needs to be updated once the WGs are up and running. If you agree, I start drafting a resolution. Issues are within mission/scope of the ccNSO. There are threshold criteria that have been met. Based on that, the advise to initiate the PDP. Next phase: if you initiate the PDP, 1 or 2 PDPs, 1 or 2 WGs and agree on the timeline. Suggestion is to run again through the issues, where there are no surprised. Are these issues in scope? If that is decided, we can at the same time launch a call for volunteers. Then we kick off the PDP in April/May. We will spend 45 min on this, also part on the update to the GAC. They have a formal role in the whole process. 1.2. Travel Funding 12 seats currently (3 NomCom, 5 to council members from the region, 4 to community) Nigel: big disconnect between slots for ccNSO compared to other SO/ACs. Not correct to only focus on the money allocated by ICANN to ccNSO When ccNSO was formed, the community was a lot more diverse. Now: All the councillors should receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Historical reasons why we have 12 slots. Reluctance at the time, but since the transition has happened, trust increased, and we need to work on a manner that is sustainable in the future. Katrina: Wrong incentive to increase the number of slots, just because other communities have more. We should concentrate on the diversity, not only on the councillors. Smaller registries are perhaps not able to attend each and every ICANN meeting. It helps if the councillors attend in person. Young-eum: Applicants for travel funding for ICANN59 are known. Selection will be based on contribution to the ccNSO. More applicants than there are slots. Demi: Has to be related to the importance of the process of the constituencies themselves. GAC does not contribute to the ICANN budget. We need more money for supporting the ccNSO to come to the meetings. Support to increase the number of slots. Nigel: We as ccTLDs contribute. Voluntary contributions mostly from the larger registries. ccTLDs provide something to ICANN that is irreplaceable: this is legitimacy. Bart: Who drafts that request, should have a look at the final report of the finance working group, to see how it was drafted. We should be aware of it, and deal with the consequences of it. Ching: The NCUC has a separate arrangement. Every year or every 2 years, event-focussed, there should be a larger group of ccTLDs meeting. This goes back to the legitimacy to bring more people here for this cause Pablo: In most communities, the representation of the Caribbean is poor. This could be an opportunity for them to participate more often. Bart: Distinction with fellowship programme should be taken into account. Originally the ccNSO travel funding was complimentary to the fellowship programme. Peter: An event should perhaps not be the driver. What we ask is strictly related to ccNSO type if activities. Barrack: If there is a way of the ccNSO travel funding programme to be expanded, I am in favour. It should be aligned to member contribution. Lot of consultation between the ccTLD members in the African region. The travel funding brings exposure. If we can increase it, that is to the benefit of the ccNSO Bart: 8 march the FY18 budget proposal request phase started. We need to start the drafting phase for the ccNSO council. Probably too cumbersome to involve the entire community. The council can submit it as part of the public comment for the FY18 budget. Nigel: Proposal to increase the number of slots from 12 to 26. Assuming every single council member needs support to attend. Bart: The number itself needs to be included in the draft Pablo: Will this have an impact on our contribution to ICANN? Nigel: We are just anticipating 1.3 oversee how IANA implements the things suggested by FOI Becky and Keith. Stephen took Becky’s seat. We should perhaps release Keith from this duty? Bart: This was discussed just before Becky left. Katrina: Keith is in CPH. Something to think about 1.4 ccNSO review webinar where we learned more about the process. Working Party with some council members was put in place. We should invite at least 1 ccTLD per region. Rinalia, who is leading this effort on behalf of the Board, was asking whether we agree to postpone the review? The community is overwhelmed, and staff as well. This was a very informal request. To be followed up. Bart: Council meeting on Wednesday: We have been working under the assumption that after this meeting, a call for volunteers to the community needs to be sent out. Katrina: We should postpone this. If there is a need, we put it back on the agenda for April. But not now 1.5. charter CCWG IG Young-eum Clarification of purposes and process. The charter describes what the group has been doing. ICANN needs to be aware of the activities outside ICANN. 1.6. CSC charter review first meeting took place yesterday with RySG and ccNSO. We agreed on the plan: we start the process before someone tell us that we are not living up to the expectations. Current plan: until June this year we draft the parameters for the review. Needs to be done by ccNSO and RySG. We need to agree on the terms. Final report by end of the year. Needs to be adopted by ccNSO and GNSO councils. Proposed to have 6 members in total: 3 from RySG and 3 from ccNSO. ccNSO members as observers. Lightweight approach. Consent agenda: - Drafting team - CWG updated charter perhaps - Travel funding - Initiating the PDP : perhaps too important to treat this as a consent agenda. 2. Preparing discussion with: a. ALAC - tonight b. GNSO - monday c. GAC - tue d. Board –tue List of things to be discussed this week: * progress EPSRP. Up to the Board to decide now what to do * PDP update * CCWG IG (Young-eum) * amendments IG WG charter * CCWG Accountability and WS2 continuation. When this group stops, it will most likely go into ATRT3 * travel slots * THU Morning: breakfast session to start working on ICANN59. Alejandra and Katrina will attend. Aiming for a more pragmatic approach. * CSC charter review * ccNSO review * Implementation bylaws. Stephen is reading annex D of the bylaws. * CCWG UCTN (Annebeth) * Auction Proceeds (Ching) EC/AC Proposal by Chris Disspain will require approval by at least 3 SO/ACs. Empowered Community: what is the message to be delivered to the other communities? On the agenda for the meetings with ALAC, GNSO, Board, GAC. Since this morning, it became clear ICANN staff is assisting as well. The ccNSO has the GRC, and that is why it is moving forward at a faster phase than the other SO/ACs. Review To be discussed with ALAC: their review Report was shocking according to Katrina. Very tough report. Reasons? The reviewers did not get the concept of ALAC and their contribution to ICANN. There were some proposals that were accepted. Some were not feasible. Programming for ICANN59 and beyond Alejandra: scheduling is an issue of communication between SO/ACs. ICANN’s meetings team drafts a block schedule, SO/ACs start working on their individual agendas and only then people start to request changes in a very late phase. GAC said that cross-community topics here were overlapping with their activities for instance. Perhaps less people should participate, so that there are less different views. Proposal programme committee with 1 rep per SO/AC Bart: Would you empower this programme committee to allow it to decline late requests? Alejandra: - Smaller programme Committee - Better and more often communicating, in an earlier phase CWG-AP - Successor to be found for co-chair J. Robinson by GNSO - Funds to be used? 11 chartering questions Meeting with GAC – USRWG “our ccTLD manager does not respond. We want ICANN to do something” We keep telling them this is a local matter. However, government representatives understand specialised language: they respect international treaties. They escalate things to ITU. That is bad for everyone. ITU does not understand our world. Might cause unnecessary problems to ccTLDs around the world. List of FAQ that would governments to understand what local internet community is. Government is only one of the significantly interested parties in this process. There are others. Perhaps a graphical representation is needed. First step: to be raised at the meeting with the GAC. Due process to follow. ccNSO nor GAC are involved. Make sure the FOI is followed Questions to the Board Too many reviews on our plate. Number of people contributing is limited. Maria Otanes was introduced to the people in the room, since she recently joined the ccNSO team. 3. Roles and responsibilities Council 3.1. Chair-vice chair election 3.2. Council committees i. Triage committee ii. Travel funding iii. Members application 3.3. Secretariat tasks 4. Draft agenda ccNSO Council agenda 5. Work-plan 6. AOB Best regards, 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