Joke, No apologies needed from my end. You’re stretched thin; I realise that. Best Regards, /Stephen PS: With regards to the Triage items… 28-2019 +1 29-2019 +1 (But I really have a problem with “Implementation Review Team” being collapsed into “IRT”, as that abbreviation is already in use); ICANN org cannot reuse that abbreviation) 30-2019 Requires further study from me. However, I would like to point out that https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_47783/guidelines-state... [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_sites_d...> is a broken link. I also note that the comment period on this expired 9 days ago. 31-2019 +1 32-2019 +1 33-2019 +1 (obviously 😉) 34-2019 +1 35-2019 +1 With my Empowered Community Administration hat on now… I wish to point out to the Council that 33-2019 will require an Approval Action Community Forum at the Montreal meeting. This will be addressed in my ECA Update presentation to the Community in Marrakesh. Further, I also would like to alert the Council that we “might” also have one or two Rejection Action Community Forums, also at the Montreal meeting, regarding 34-2019, but I would suggest that the odds of this happening are similar to winning one’s national lottery. I just do not see the Empowered Community rising up with pitchforks and torches over the bylaw changes that the RSSAC and SSAC are seeking. This will also be addressed in my ECA Update to the Community in Marrakesh. From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:57 To: ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Triage recommendations 28 until 34 - 2019 Dear councillors, I just realised that I had not yet sent you triage recommendations 28, 29 and 30, as formulated by the Triage Committee. My sincere apologies for the delay in sending them over. Please find recommendations 28,29 and 30 included below, as well as the triage recommendations 30 to 34. If you do not agree with the recommendations, kindly let me know by Friday, 21 June 2019, 23:59 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken Number: 28-2019 Topic: Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation rules Request from: ICANN GDD Summary: Third version of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR-3) was released for public comment [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newsalerts.icann.org_AB...> on 25 April 2019, integrating 16 script proposals out of the 28 scripts identified. As the RZ-LGR is being incrementally developed by the community, the RZ-LGR Study Group (SG) was constituted on the request of the ICANN Board to study technical considerations for utilizing the RZ-LGR to determine valid top-level domains (TLDs) and their variant labels in a harmonized manner. RZ-LGR-SG has completed its work and is releasing the Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newsalerts.icann.org_uC...> to seek feedback from the community. RZ-LGR-SG will take into account the community input to finalize the recommendations. The final recommendations will be presented to the ICANN Board for further consideration. Close date: 30 June 2019 (23:59 UTC) Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-05-15-en? [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno...> Recommended action: send to ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-council@ and share via social media Impact on ccNSO: low Relevance for ccTLDs: low Number: 29-2019 Topic: Call for volunteers: implementation Review Team for Registration Data Policy Implementation Request from: Summary: ICANN is seeking volunteers to participate in an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist in the implementation of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team's Phase 1 policy recommendations. Close date: 30 June 2019 (23:59 UTC) Read more: For more details on the EPDP Recommendations and timeline, please go here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newsalerts.icann.org_j14R002PC000M0gNEdr0C00&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HyTT2ymvadmiQcmo6B088sWOukGjEbibHJ64u5rMiME&m=7jPyphPhzLDEXwoVBkukS8c6LkjwhJZyIUMDBw5ngDM&s=FMr4fZXlYEUTpePtI2gNsrD2RBnaH231osGf0n1UIOY&e=>(See EPDP Team Recommendation 28.) The work of the IRT is estimated to last until early 2020. Recommended action: none Impact on ccNSO: low Relevance for ccTLDs: low Number: 30-2019 Topic: Input regarding 6 recommendations: NomCom organisational review Request from: NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG) Summary: the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG) was tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner (re NomCom organisational review). Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked NomComRIWG to draft a Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. NomComRIWG identified 6 recommendations, where they seek input from – among others - the ccNSO or individual ccNSO members. 1. Recommendation 10: Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. · What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the SO/ACs be based on? 1. Recommendation 14: Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed competencies and experience. · What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC? 1. Recommendation 16: Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) · What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees members that wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom? 1. Recommendation 24: An empowered body of current and former NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to NomCom operations. · What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term-limits, number and allocation of seats. 1. Recommendation 25: Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees. · What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and improve future NomCom appointments? 1. Recommendation 27: Provide clarity on desire for and definition of “independent directors”. Upon clarification of desire and definition, determine the number of specific seats for “independent directors”. · What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing of this recommendation? Close date: 10 June 2019. If the deadline cannot be met, staff support should be informed asap. Read more: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> Recommended action: Council statement need, as defined inhttps://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_47783/guidelines-state... [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_sites_d...> To be included: ccNSO requesting more seats. Impact on ccNSO: middle Relevance for ccTLDs: middle Number: 31-2019 Topic: Evolving the governance of the root server system Request from: ICANN Board of Directors Summary: This Public Comment proceeding seeks feedback for evolving the governance of the Root Server System (RSS), including a proposed community-driven process. On 3 May 2019, the ICANN Board approved a resolution to begin Public Comment on this topic. ICANN org will prepare a summary report of the Public Comment proceeding for the consideration of the ICANN Board as it determines next steps. Close date: 09 August 2019 Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> Recommended action: send to ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-council@ and share via social media Impact on ccNSO: middle Relevance for ccTLDs: high Number: 32-2019 Topic: Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH) Election Procedures for Board Seat #14 Request from: GNSO Summary: This public comment proceeding seeks input on the Non-Contracted Parties House's (NCPH) proposed election procedures for Seat #14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. Under Section 11.3(f)(ii) [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newsalerts.icann.org_b0...> of the ICANN Bylaws, the NCPH has the responsibility of selecting a representative to fill Board Seat #14. The procedures were jointly developed by the Stakeholder Groups comprising the NCPH to address the Board Seat appointment process and for inclusion as an Annex to the GNSO Operating Procedures Close date: 24 Jun 2019 23:59 UTC Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ncph-election-procedures-seat-14-2019-... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> Recommended action: none Impact on ccNSO: No impact Relevance for ccTLDs: none Number: 33-2019 Topic: Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal – IANA Naming function Review Request from: ICANN Legal Summary: The purpose of this public comment proceeding is to obtain community input on a proposed change to Bylaws Section 18.7(b), regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. The proposed amendment was raised by the ccNSO, which has identified a current and ongoing issue with populating the IANANaming Function Review in accordance with the Bylaws' requirements. The Board, taking on the ccNSO's request, agreed to initiate the Fundament Bylaws amendment process (specified Section 25.2 of the Bylaws) to seek community input on the ccNSO's proposed modifications to the composition requirements. The amendment would remove the requirement for the ccNSO to identify a non-ccNSO member ccTLD representative and instead allow the ccNSO to appoint three representatives to the team, regardless of ccNSO member status. Close date: 26 Jul 2019 23:59 UTC Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> Recommended action: 1/ Secretariat to share with ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-council@ and share via social media 2/ Council to submit a statement, as an acknowledgement of the importance of this request Impact on ccNSO: high Relevance for ccTLDs: high Number: 34-2019 Topic: Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership Request from: ICANN Legal Summary: Both the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) are undergoing Organizational Reviews pursuant to ICANN's Bylaws. In each of those reviews, there is an identified need to update the leadership references contained within ICANN's Bylaws. As a result, both the SSAC and RSSAC requested the Board to initiate the Bylaws amendment process. The RSSAC wishes to change its leadership structure, while the SSAC wishes to have the option to do the same should it so choose. Bylaws changes are required to effectuate each of these outcomes. On 3 May 2019, at Board Resolutions 2019.05.03.13 and 2019.05.03.15 – 2019.05.03.23, the Board directed the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to publish for public comment the proposed standard amendments to Article 12, Section 12.2(b)(ii) (SSAC) and Article 12, Section 12.2(c) (RSSAC) of the ICANN Bylaws. Close date: 26 July 2019 Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-revisions-ssac-rssac-leadership... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> Recommended action: none Impact on ccNSO: No impact Relevance for ccTLDs: none Number: 35-2019 Topic: Proposed IANA SLAs for publishing LGR/IDN tables Request from: ICANN org Summary: As required by the IANA Naming Function Process for Amending the IANA Naming SLAs [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>, the purpose of this public comment proceeding is to obtain community input on a proposed new SLA which would define expectations of request processing timeliness for Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs). If adopted, the new requirements will be added to the performance metrics as defined in the Service Level Agreements for the IANA Naming Functions Contract. The Repository of IDN Practices supports internationalized domain names (IDNs) by promoting the sharing of registry IDN policies. The IDN Repository houses the IDN tables or LGRs for registries that offer IDN registrations. The IANA naming functions include maintaining the LGRs through processing requests for the publication or modification of the rulesets for each TLD registry. Close date: 26 July 2019 Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-iana-sla-lgr-idn-tables-2019-... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> Recommended action: Secretariat to share with ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-council@ and share via social media Impact on ccNSO: low Relevance for ccTLDs: middle 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