NOTES | Council prep | 31 October 2024 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by chair Alejandra. 2. Admin matters 1. SoI 2. Attendance ICANN81 3. Prep joint meetings with Board and GAC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Obev-6U_cu2nISM1pk2JIbUHi22Ob5kj/edit Bart: request from Board, directed at SOPC regarding the current financial stress. Irina and Andreas invited. Irina sent her apologies. Main message to the Board? Private capacity, or on behalf of the SOPC? SOPC consultation is challenging at the moment Nick: lots of comments on record regarding ICANN’s finances. Many statements on the record to be cautious. No need to go back to SOPC again. We need to get the tone right. But: “we told you so”. The wage bill and the number of staff have increased scarily quickly. Bart: clear. Do you have a suggestion going forward? Nick: there are better and cheaper processes these days. Also, the length of the processes. E.g. new gTLD process. The world has changed. The EU can legislate quicker than ICANN can make policy. Andreas: new gTLD round. No staff left from the 1st round. We should be more straightforward. Not say “ reduce the headcount “. but postpone future hiring. Look into AI. could help with translation etc. Alejandra: agree with jordan Jordan: maybe we simply need to be more pointed and more public at time. While remaining respectful. I am not sure how many people know how long our critique has gone on - and basically been ignore. so I think 'I told you so' isn't helpful, but 'we want you to account to us for why you have ignored our repeated warnings' Alejandra: been ongoing for a long time. For those things we needed processed. Not worth to be that formal. The question asks more for an opinion Bart: refer to the comments over the years. Pablo: cut down on meetings. Not getting together is not a good answer. It always facilitates conversation. Another meeting in PR soon. Headcount Jordan: not responding or ignoring the advice. What we said would happen, has happened. Why did you decide not to follow that advice? Why didn’t you act? Chris: what process did you follow to evaluate our advice? You made a decision not to follow our advice. Did you read our input, and carried on nonetheless? Stephen: Review Mechanism. Ridiculous. Public forum Chris: there is none Nick: Thursday morning. Bart: progress ccPDP3 and ccPDP4 is a separate topic. Andreas: all relevant points. Agree with Chris. We mentioned it for many years. Tell them what we identified in the past. How will you respond in future? Clear KPI’s. We need to get their answers. How do they deal with our input? Most important point for us.
Bart: Andreas and Irina take the initiative to speak to this topic. Followed by others, such as what happened today. Put comments on record.
Regarding messaging: Chris will take that topic. The question is self-explanatory. It became obvious when Katrina stepped down. Chris: hard to plan for surprises. Nick: succession planning and continuity is important regarding term ends. Bart: kick off with the board question, and further discussion on duration of processed and continuity issues.
Bylaw change. Alejandra will speak to this. Alejandra: what do we expect? Should i ask for a timeline? Bart: rather a workflow. They need to go through workflow. So that people know what is happening and who is responsible for which part? How to get to the decision to start the public comment period? Who initiates the public comment on a bylaw change, and when?
progress board consideration ccPDP3 and ccPDP4 Stephen: zero action. Delay is not in bylaws. How d we nudge them? Chris: empathize with Stephen. Ccpdp on retirement is done Bart: review mechanism (ccPDP3) and ccPDP4. Chris: are they in the same disarray? If we are worried about ccPDP3, let’s leave it at that. Only ccpdpd3 is in the board’s hands. Understand why stephen is annoyed. They are entitled to ask their questions. Did it take long to ask the questions? Does it take long to answer? Stephen: bylaws do not foresee the option to ask questions. Chris: trying to get a win out of this. Those questions came from legal. Legal consequences to the policy. What lawyers will do, is seeking clarity. That it is not the issue. But the time it took to answer them and that we have no clarity on what happens with our answers. Jordan: they lost the person that leads this work and have our answers since a month. Not reasonable for us to ask them to answer. They learned how crappy that process was. They learned for future PDPs. There is a structure for the GNSO policies. Board readiness something. We could look at that. We could also look at how we write the reports. What can you commit to when the next steps will happen? Bart: mechanism of board caucuses. Stephen: happy that Becky stepped in.
3 topics with GAC * WSIS+20: Chris, Peter * Iana policy gap: Jordan * DNS abuse survey: Nick Bart: GAC has appointed a liaison to ccNSO. From Australia. 4. Overview of session and assignment of rapporteurs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ura8spCLbiRxqRYE0SK1EuInzs-wy7hM/edit Chris: non commercial stakeholder group. Changes re DNS abuse might have human rights impact. They will explain during a session. That is what that is about. Would be good for someone from DASC to attend. Olga: volunteered Chris: clash with Council workshop. Nick: freedom of expression. Chris: what if i went? Alejandra: prefer not. Rather a report afterwards Nick: let’s ask Bruce. Bart: yes. done. 5. Prep Council work session Sunday 10 November, 10.30 local time, Room: Hamidiye - Briefing document included. Nick: hard to find all links Jordan: "ccNSO Google Doc Links - ICANN81" or something 6. AOB 7. Adjourn Thanks all. Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Read more about the ccNSO at ICANN81: https://community.icann.org/x/IgDyF