Dear all, Here is the recording from today's Special Council Call: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-23dec15-en.mp3 Thanks, Kim From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 6:22 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Informal notes special Council call 23 December 2015 Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from todays special Council call, Kind regards, Bart ---------------- Special Council Call - 23 December 2015 @12:00 UTC Agenda: 1 Welcome & roll call 2. Taking stock - Where are we? 3. Next steps Notes Welcome & roll call Apologies: Peter Vergrote Young-eum Lee Hiro Hotta Not attending: Souleymane, Vika, Ching Chiao, Celia Meeting is quorate. Fluid nature of CCWG In contrast to where we anticipated when we agreed to have special meeting Basic Agenda Agreed by all present In November meeting agreed to have today's meeting Goal at the time to be in position to make a decision Watching process, it is a fluid situation. Purpose now is to have a feeling from Council on direction of travel. Agreed Basic methodology Understand if there is general consensus Requisite number of members of CCWG need to support proposal Unanimity is not required. Their job to engage in process (together with participants) Further general support for essence of proposal from community and thirdly conditionality of CWG -Stewardship needs to be met. Invitation to Councilors need to speak up Taking stock Timeline: Submission by end January Recent events put timeline under question. ? Number of comments received, including from ROs and individual ccTLDs ? US Politics: DOTCOM has not come to floor and likely will not, not part of the US Omnibus. Maybe some positive elements not make as well. -> Becky: Process is less clear, some level or order we do not have now. If result is well structured and well supported, could shorten 30 legislative day process. If all went relatively well, may not need 30 legislative days. ? Board comment is extensive: one side relative supportive, on other side critical. Without addressing those potential of slippage GAC position appears to be on its way ccNSO appointed CCWG member are not unanimous. Concerns on process CWG Stewardship Comment Requirement is that a minimum more clarity is needed. Summarize as being positive and headed in direction of support, but need for additional clarity if not change Next Steps Nigel: Brief sense. Will there a resolution? Response: Not in position to pass a resolution, but need provide an opinion Nigel: agree not in a position to take a resolution We could provide feed-back to CCWG, wants to provide input, could do over the list? Response: What are we going to do still not clear, but basic suggestion is to make a meaningful and constructive contribution Other communities have had varying opinions. Looking at the ccTLD contributions, generally positive but at a minimum need for additional clarification and number of issues, that need to be addressed. For overview see email Mathieu as forwarded. Question: What is Council going to do over evolved landscape Stephen: No reason to go forward other than with thank you , premature to take other position, before last hurdles have been taken. Lesley: Inclined to be more supportive then Stephen Include need for clarity. Minded to be supportive, subject to clarification Keith: I don't really think we need to - would be nice to get greater clarity to see if we can achieve unanimity... Becky: In agreement as described by Lesley and Byron Proposed direction statement ? Appreciate work ? Reminding CCWG that from cTLD perspective - Conditionality of work around the CWG-Stewardship must be met - Note fact that ccTLD and ROs in general supportive but flag they have noted issues. At a minimum provide more clarity. Any comments on messaging? Peter Van Roste supportive of line of reasoning as well as Abibu and others Drafting process ? Include messages in draft ( Byron and Bart) ? To be circulated over the list right after X-Mas: Ensure that it is on the list so Councillors could chime in ? Send to CCWG just before new-year General agreement over procedure. All expect brief text over next few days Revisit topic on regular scheduled meeting 21 January 2016 AOB No further questions