NOTES
ccNSO Council meeting 217
Thursday, 15 May 2025 (12:00 UTC)
Table of contents
Background and supporting documents
4. Intermeeting Council Decisions (since meeting 215, March 2025)
5. Intermeeting Decisions Triage Committee
6. Update ECA, IFRT & CSC (written updates)
7. Update Working Groups (written updates)
8. Update Liaisons (written updates)
9. Update ccNSO Website redesign
10. Progress Board Consideration ccPDP4-IDN and ccPDP3-RM
11. Update Chair, Vice-chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations and Secretariat
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS
13. Closure PGA WG and adoption final report
14. Adoption Election Report: Special Council Election European region
15. Adoption Terms of Reference MPC review and call for volunteers MPC review Team
16. Appointment members or chairs/vice chairs to committees and working groups, if any
17. Approval ccNSO membership application Sri Lanka (xn--fzc2c9e2c /
ලංකා) ccTLD manager
SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS
19. Introduction ccNSO Work Plan 01 July 2025 - 30 June 2027 and ccNSO Activity Monitor
https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/D4wlBg
Welcome by Alejandra Reynoso, Chair ccNSO
Irina and Andreas joined us today, for a special AOB. Concern expressed by SOPC regarding the recently adopted budget which is currently in the
rejection action period. There is also a second AOB, regarding the council selection guideline.
Any additional AOB? None
a.
SOI updates
Consult the
ccNSO SOI Guideline
Complete the SOI
template
Check the ccNSO
Statements of Interest
b.
Meeting Quorum
Claudia: Apologies received from Ai-Chin
We are quorate
a.
Minutes Meeting 216
Circulated to the Council mailing list
No questions
Minutes accepted
b.
Action Items Meeting 216
No questions or comments
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to share the minutes of the 1-on-1 meeting between the ccNSO leadership and the ICANN CEO with the Council,
once they become available.
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to share a reminder to Council with the link to the 360 review surveys.
As a follow-up to action item 215-02, the drafting team will share the draft Council comment on the IFRT2 request for comments with the Council
for review and feedback before its submission.
The ccNSO Council Chair is requested to inform the committees and working groups about the Council-approved schedule for the ccNSO working group
and committee effectiveness reviews.
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to publish the adopted schedule for ccNSO working group and committee effectiveness reviews.
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to draft the Terms of Reference for the review of the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC), prior to Council
Meeting 217
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to seek volunteers to perform the review of the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC). The team should be
in place prior to Council Meeting 217.
Regarding the appointment of the members to the various working groups and committees, the secretariat is requested to inform the respective working
groups and the secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website.
The ccNSO Council chair is requested to confirm with Molehe Wesi if he agrees to join the drafting team to prepare a ccNSO Council response to
the How We Meet request for input, alongside Jodi Andersson and Pablo Rodriguez.
The drafting team is requested to prepare the draft ccNSO Council response to the 'How We Meet' request for input by 1 May.
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to seek volunteers for organizing the joint meeting with the RySG at ICANN83 and to improve the draft briefing
paper by Council Meeting 217.
a.
Adoption Council Statement in response to the request for comments on 2nd IFRT Initial Report
b.
Nominations for FY27 Community Planning Prioritization Group
There were no intermeeting decisions by the ccNSO Triage Committee.
Alejandra: items 4 and 5 self-explanatory. We will now go to the special AOB by SOPC.
As you will have seen, the FY26 budget has recently been adopted and is now in the Rejection Action petition period. As some of you may have seen,
the adopted budget has changed in comparison with the budget that was subject to public comment. Irina and Andreas want you to be aware of this and have already informed the SOPC and send us an email about it. I want to give them the floor to explain what
happened and express their concerns
Andreas: see our email. There were changes that surprised us. Only minor changes in the past 10 years. Revenue increased by 8 million, and also
(personnel) costs increased with the same amount. Good reasons to do so. They raised the fee structure. But are the transaction fees appropriately calculated? We are in touch with planning and await feedback.
Irina: We always welcome a conservative approach for funding, and always were in favour of keeping headcount under control. This is a change to
that approach. See the tables. During the public comment we saw a different table than what has now been adopted. Icann claims that the increase reflects the increase on the transaction based fees of contracted parties. Without details on the projections,
is the increase correct or not? Probably it is. The projections might be accurate, but the manner in which it appeared is disturbing.
Alejandra: indeed, unusual process
Jordan: Thanks for the brief. Regardless of whether there is a step to take in terms of the accountability process. I think you should ask for
an emergency meeting with Kurtis and Xavier. Reasonable to revise the budget, but it is a breach of trust, if there is no communication around it
Chris: I suggest that Ale and Andreas write to Xavier expressing a concern and asking for a meeting of SOPC and Council reps with Xavier asap
Jordan: Kurtis is responsible
Andreas: other options to address the issue? What are your suggestions?
Jordan: I already made my suggestion.
No-one has ever done that with the budget before. For years, the same things have been said. We have been telling you to not do uncontrolled growth
for years. We are disappointed. You do not listen.
Chris: more delicate terms. “We may have misunderstood, but …. What appears to be happening is this…” have a meeting asap. Agree that Xavier and
Kurtis should be contacted. Address the letter to both. We want to convene a small group asap.
Andreas: who needs to write? Sopc or council?
Alejandra: i can do that
Chris: chair of council and chair of SOPC. Both groups talked about it. Shows the path.
Alejandra: i can make a draft on behalf of both.
Rejection Action Petition notice is only valid for notices brought during the public comment. These numbers were not part of the public comment.
Andreas: agree with the approach.
Irina: agree, either way. Separate or joint emails
Stephen: any update from other SO/ACs?
Alejandra: SO/AC roundtable was deferred to next week. So we could not bring it up yet
Irina: should we inform the broader ccTLD community?
Alejandra: not yet. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. First speak with ICANN. Might not have been intentional.
Written updates from WG/C were circulated. Others coming soon. Any comments regarding WG updates?
Stephen: Tech Day call for presenters on the way.
Alejandra: welcome to stay, Irina. Call is open to observers
a.
Need to defer 3rd
CSC Review? Updates and next steps
We and the GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN legal about the changes to Section 17 of the Bylaws.
Given the duration of the Bylaw changes I suggest that we reach out to the GNSO Council to discuss next steps:
To do’s:
The Charter needs to be amended by the ccNSO Council and RySG
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
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
Alejandra: small team is developing the content for the website.
It is moving slowly, but it is moving. ICANN will start proofreading.
Stephen: looking good.
Bart: very likely that the Board will discuss the ccPDP3-RM in Prague, and adopt it
With respect to PDP4: staff needs to understand the implementation. Gradually moving forward, higher pace than ccPDP3.
Will address a consequence of the RM when we discuss the workload for the next year.
a.
Presentation LACTLD
Alejandra: ccNSO Update. Emphasis in Policy Gap Analysis WG work + opportunity to promote the Finance WG Survey and the ccNSO Block Schedule
for Prague.
b.
Information session to the ICANN Board (pending board discussion)
Alejandra: As you may recall, last August we received a letter from the Board where they expressed:
The Board would like to organize information sessions with each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee on a regular basis, and at least once every three
years. The aim of these sessions is to strengthen the Board’s collegial understanding of the community, and also to develop board members’ individual knowledge, particularly for those who join the Board from outside of ICANN’s environment.
These sessions are not intended to duplicate or replace the public bilateral sessions that take place during ICANN meetings.
Each session will be 90 minutes long. The suggested format would include a presentation by each Chair and/or Vice Chair(s), focusing on the group’s role in ICANN’s
ecosystem and how it fulfills this role. The presentation should allow time for a question-and-answer period to encourage interaction between the Board and the presenters. Each session will be widely promoted and open to the community.
Seems like we will have our Information session Sunday morning right before the ICANN meeting starts.
No questions or comments
Alejandra: results of the review circulated. I will reach out to the councillors that were evaluated to discuss. Later, we need to discuss the
future of these evaluations. The next round starts shortly.
Please think about it. We will discuss it again during the council prep meeting for ICANN83. Next round already starts in July.
a.
Staff and former chair draft terms of reference study groups
Jordan: the group has finished. The final report is ready. 3 recommendations in the first page.
We met the timeframe we set for ourselves.
We had a discussion on how to draft the ToR. Should we extend the group for longer? Simple docs on the work done. Staff and former chair will
draft the ToR for the study groups. Hope they will be ready for adoption at ICANN83. Thanks to the secretariat, councillors and the WG members.
Stephen and Pablo thank Jordan for his leadership and the rest of the team for their work
Peter: i was part of the team. Thanks to co-chairs and staff. Question regarding the resolution.
Any other comments?
Move? Jordan
Second? Pablo
Any questions regarding the resolution?
Peter: “specifically regarding recommendation 3”. Why is it being singled out? Do we implement it more than the others?
Bart: it should be number 2. Get the study group going.
Peter: ok.
Alejandra: any additional questions? None
Green ticks in zoom
Joke: 2025 elected councillor stepped down in February. Council launched a call for nominations. One person nominated and seconded per the rules:
Nigel Roberts. He accepted, also to join a Q&A. Q&A eventually was not held, due to low attendance. No elections needed, as there was only one candidate.
The report is short. No major observations, other than those previously made regarding language included in the guideline. Process closes after
adoption of the report,
Move? Peter
Second? Stephen
No questions or comments
We welcome Nigel back to council
Alejandra: As you will recall we agreed to a schedule for reviews of maximum 2 reviews per calendar year, assuming these reviews can be done effectively
and efficiently. The first one will be the MPC, to be reviewed around ICANN83. The draft Terms of Reference for the review were drafted and circulated to chair and vice-chair of the MPC and no comments were received.
Move? Wafa
Second? Pablo
Any questions regarding the decision? None
Green marks
Alejandra: With the terms of Reference in place we need to find at least 2 Councillors to volunteer on the Review Team. You have been asked to
consider to be part of the team, specifically those of you that have not served and are currently not a member of the MPC. Anyone?
Everton, Ai-Chin and myself are not eligible
Jordan: if the process is quick and at icann83 …
Sean: We did this for DASC. 3 persons and staff. We drafted questions, and asked those involved with the committee. Post-session input. Questions
should be open enough.
Alejandra: would be helpful if you could help getting this started
Bart: one or 2 meetings after icann83 to come up with the set of recommendations. The sooner the better. We can do desk-research on attendance.
All in the template what needs to be done. The RT needs to talk to people. Collect their information and create the report. Report back to council and mpc.
There will not be an mpc meeting. What do people think about the sessions, and the role of the MPC? The focus is different. The design of the
question is important
Volunteers? Sean, Pablo, Jordan
Bart: one NomCom appointee?
Wafa volunteers.
Pablo: I will not be present in Prague.
Alejandra: you will need to help with the report in that case.
Decision
The ccNSO Council appoints the following people as:
The secretariat is requested to inform the various working groups and committees and persons appointed and publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution
becomes effective upon publication.
Move? Wafa
Second? Jaijit
Any questions? None
Chris abstains
Alejandra thanks Chris and Guillermo for volunteering.
a.
ICANN Call for Nominations: Universal Acceptance Expert Working Group
Background
ICANN opened a
call for nominations for members of a new Universal Acceptance (UA) Expert Working
Group of up to 12 volunteers to provide guidance on promoting UA adoption. ICANN is inviting the At-large Advisory Committee, Country Code Names Supporting Organization,
Governmental Advisory Committee, Generic Names Supporting Organization, and Security and Stability Advisory Committee to each submit one nomination by 25 June 2025. In addition, the ICANN President and CEO will invite a chair and up to six experts to join.
Decision
Following a
call for nominations for members of a new Universal Acceptance (UA) Expert Working
Group, the ccNSO Council requests the Secretariat to launch a call for Expressions of Interest (EoI) to identify candidates for the ccNSO appointment to the ICANN UA Expert
Group. The call should open by 19 May 2025 and close by 30 May 2025.
The selection and appointment process will follow the ccNSO Appointment Procedures Guideline.
, and will result in the appointment of one individual to serve as the ccNSO appointee to the ICANN UA Expert Group.
The Secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as feasible. The resolution becomes effective upon publication.
Move? Wafa
Second? Sean
Chris apologised. He needs to leave
All in favour.
Decision
The ccNSO Council approves the membership of the IDN ccTLD Manager of Sri Lanka (xn--fzc2c9e2c /
ලංකා) and welcomes LK Domain Registry as member of the ccNSO. The chair of the Council is requested
to welcome the new member accordingly. This decision becomes effective upon publication.
Joke: iana services staff. No issues.
Stephen: I know Gihan, this is a great thing. I endorse this fully
Peter: another application from the same member?
Gihan: no. we were not a member yet
Move? Sean
Second? Everton
All in favour
Gihan: glad to join the ccNSO. We have been in existence for many years. My colleague will be in ICANN83
Patricio: ASCII ccTLD already a member?
Joke: no
Peter: important for Emissary
Gihan: it is the same ccTLD manager for both ASCII and IDNs
Joke: iana delegation record ASCII ccTLD and IDN ccTLD has slight differences.
Perhaps administrative updates are pending?
a.
How We Meet: Reviewing the Implementation of the ICANN Public Meetings Strategy
Due 19.May
Peter: comments on the members mailing list.
Alejandra: We do not have time to include them in the council statement. This is a council statement, not a ccNSO statement. We wanted to share
with the community, to help them make their own statements.
The rest of the community should feel free to submit their own responses. The more input, the merrier
Bart: the discussion group is still active. We can forward the comments to them. More colour and depth to the submissions. There were additional
points raised. General high level of support on the draft submission. No one that contradicted the observations and comments from council
Move? Wafa
Second? Pablo
Alejandra: Let's add the last names by Molehe and Jodi to the resolution.
Thank you for your hard work. Still ongoing.
Alejandra: molehe wrote in chat kudos to Jodi, who did a lot of the work
b.
Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of RIRs
Due 27.May
Peter: update to IPCP2. Should ring warning bells. I might be biased. Even if we do not submit a comment. I made this comment previously: we should
investigate. The foundational doc. Replaced by something that will not have an icp number. For us it meant RFC1591 is not under ccNSO control. Too short to have a comment in there. Preferably we would have a conversation with ASO. what does it mean for the
governance system? People believe this will fix the afrinic case. I recommend to seek conversation with ASO
Jordan: formal response would be weird. Pure GNSO PDPs. I do not think there is a strong reason to comment. But good comment, regarding the overall
governance. Pressure on the governance model currently. Understanding how they reacted to the pressure, careful and gradual process. That engagement is a good idea. But we do not need a submission
Stephen: agree with Jordan.
Alejandra: do not submit a comment. But monitor how it will overall affect the governance.
Peter: agree not to submit a comment. However, make sure to actively reach out. More informal than a written comment
Stephen: agree.
c.
Customer Standing Committee (CSC) changes Process for Amending the IANA SLAs
Due 2.June
Alejandra: note to support the SLA change procedure.
Can we have a draft tomorrow?
Bart: yes. Straightforward. Doc has been simplified and it allows for a full review of all SLAs. from 60 to 20 something.
Peter: not in scope for the IFRT, but we had the same input. We should send a comment. This is our core business.
Alejandra: agree.
Bart: the triage committee met recently. They discussed new work items. With the adoption of the RM pending, we will start a new mechanism. Ccnso
will need to assist in implementation. Major work item between july and Oman. You have the ongoing work of all committees, the study groups, and this implementation. So a review of the workplan is necessary.
All projects from a ccnso perspective are moving along. Some faster than others. Any questions? Let triage or me know. Chris will be spokesperson
moving forward, now that he is appointed as chair
a.
Block Schedule
Claudia: no changes since last time
Joke: ccnso session info on
https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/198410241
b.
Joint session with RySG
Alejandra: we need to meet next week with them to kick off planning
Claudia: yes, i already reached out to the chairs
Peter: we need to meet. I have a topic. Could be addressed during an informal meeting too
Alejandra: will reach out to you afterwards
Sean: draft ccnso council selection guideline. We finalised the draft on monday. We took into account feedback received via election process report.
Increased accountability and transparency. We also added a glossary. Who can nominate/second. Diagram with process flow. Change of affiliation to formalise a current existing process
Alejandra: please review the draft. Use the council list to ask comments
Bart: OMC will start buddy-system prior to ICANN83. Expect an invitation! We seek buddies.
Bye all