NOTES
ccNSO Council meeting 214
Thursday, 13 February 2025 at 12:00 UTC
Welcome by Alejandra
Please add “council” to your zoom ID
Wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=486014979
no need for Nick to recuse himself regarding item 13
Is just an update
Thank you to all who contributed to the 2024 achievements report. Good feedback received.
a.
Establish whether meeting is Quorate
Claudia: We are quorate.
2 apologies: Molehe and Ai-Chin
b.
Update Statement of Interest
Any updates? none
None
a.
Minutes Meeting 213: circulated 28 January 2025
No comments or questions
Minutes confirmed
b.
Action Items
All either ongoing or completed. Any questions? none
As soon as possible and after adoption of the resolution, the Chair of the ccNSO Council is requested to submit the
ccNSO response to the request for public comments on the Continuous Improvement Framework to ICANN, on behalf of the Council and the GRC.
Completed
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to keep the progress of the Pilot Holistic Review as a standing item on the Council agenda.
Completed
The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the Council Election Report as soon as possible and to inform the GRC about the Council request to review
the ccNSO Council Election Guideline, taking into account the recommendations by the Council Election Process Manager as included in the 2025 Election Report.
Completed
Regarding the appointment of the leadership team to the second ccNSO Finance WG, the secretariat is requested to inform the working group and the secretariat is requested to publish this
resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website.
Completed
Regarding the adoption of the DASC Review Report, the secretariat is requested to inform the working group and ask the working group to take appropriate action. The secretariat is requested
to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website.
Completed
The ccNSO Council asked the DASC review team, with the help of the ccNSO Secretariat, to document their review methodology by Council meeting 214, to serve as a blueprint for future reviews
of the effectiveness and efficiency of other committees in the coming years.
Pending/ongoing
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to circulate the outline and background materials with all invited, prior to the virtual Council workshop on 23 January.
Completed
The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to circulate to Council the proposed timeline and background materials and to take all other measures necessary to start the next round of Council 360
reviews.
Completed
212-A:
Approval Timeline 360 Review
Surveys were circulated. It does not take long to respond, and the input is useful. Due date: 3 March
Triage committee suggest that the Council with assistance of GRC provides comments on Proposed Updates to the Operating Standards for Specific
Reviews (https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-updates-to-the-operating-standards-for-specific-reviews-23-12-2024)
The Triage committee has made one decision, which was circulated yesterday to you. I know GRC has started to look into this update. Any questions?
none
Alejandra: Unless specific questions or comments I suggest we take item 6, 7 and 8 as read, and no discussion needed. No objections raised
a.
ccPDP3-Review Mechanism
- Dormant
b.
ccPDP4-IDN
- Dormant
c.
DASC
d.
FIN2 WG (New)
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
a.
Update ccNSO Liaison to ALAC
b.
Update ccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council
c.
Update ccNSO Liaison
to UASG
Alejandra: wire-framing has been completed. Small team is now preparing content.
a.
Update ccPDP4 IDN ccTLDs
Bart: Board Caucus reviewing the ccPDP4 recommendations, comparing them with Fast Track Process and the GNSO EPDP. ccNSO was asked to align with
GNSO PDP efforts. Hence the comparison. The caucus will meet again next week. Staff support ploughing forward.
b.
Debrief conversation ccPDP3-RM
Jordan: It was a good conversation. Some areas where both the ICANN lawyers and board members needed some additional clarification. Helpfully
led by Becky. No unresolved issues.
Assume no further questions, and implementation process to be kicked off swiftly.
Stephen agrees.
Nick: Good call indeed. Useful discussion. It took us a long time to go through the 45 questions. No reason why we could not have had that conversation
one year ago.
Jordan: We couldn't have got there a year ago. We hadn't even been asked the questions a year ago. but aside from that, I do agree with Nick
Alejandra: we learn from processes, now we know better
11.
Update CWG, IFRT and RRSAC working party
Alejandra: As you may recall Peter raised the work of the IANA Function Review (IFR), and the Root Server System Governance Working Group (RSS
GWG). Peter is one of the ccNSO appointees to both IFRT and RSS GWG, and suggested that the Council should examine these topics in more detail.
Peter: I will start with the IANA Functions Review. 2nd time the naming functions contract is under review. Refers to the number of appointees
from the various stakeholders, including 3 from ccNSO: Olga, Sami, Peter. ICANN staff support, and an editor is working on the draft report. Expect it to be ready around ICANN82. Good news: no systemic issues found. Performance of PTI against naming functions
contract is being evaluated. The CSC has a monthly review of the monthly reports PTI produces. Checked against the SLAs. The CSC cannot deal with specific, single cases. That is for review and reconsideration. The role of the functions review: looking at systemic
issues. The SLAs can only measure what is defined. There could be situations where boxes are checked, but still the customer experience is different. There is one carry-over from the previous review: which made recommendations. There was also a bylaw change.
A non ccnso-member had to be added, which was difficult. After the conclusion of the previous review, the ccNSO and GNSO made suggestions to adjust the frequency of reviews. The next review took this up, and will suggest that the review period will be adjusted.
Recommendations need time to be evaluated and implemented.
Given that we have ccPDP-RM now, and this is a heads up in prep for the public comments, it turned out that the ombuds team has a role in the
customer complaint process. If the complaint was not solved by iana, it could go to the ombuds. Has never been executed. Little of the complaints process has ever been executed. Interesting for the ccNSO and council, is : do we see confusion with the review
mechanisms that will soon be part of our policy tool box? To be determined when we have the draft report in front of us.
The gTLDS had a short session in Istanbul. The suggestion is to have webinar-style awareness sessions. To ensure the important report (core function
for ccTLDs: IANA) is brought to the attention of ccTLDs, so they are aware. More lightweight than the public comments process. Raising awareness, introducing the topics.
Bart: if you do it prior to ICANN82, people may loose interest in the public comment, and it is already rather packed prior to Seattle. Suggestion
is to do the webinar later
Peter: understood. Idea was to get input to feed into the draft report. Have we overlooked something?
Alejandra: adjustments of the iana functions reviews, correct? From the previous review, and it was not implemented?
Peter: the suggestion was not in the review report, but it came up in one of the subsequent public comments. It was nothing that was denied, delayed,
or postponed. The team had concluded by that time
Bart: this is about the IFRT. is now 5 years. And to do something 5 years after the conclusion. CSC is every 3 years. Potential confusion
Peter: clock to start ticking by the end of the review, and not the start of the review.
No further questions
Peter: contact switch. Root Server System Governance WG. has a large number of members. 12 root server operators are represented, plus RZ maintainer,
iana, RySG, ccNSO. Two ccNSO appointees: Peter and Luis Diego Espinoza. It is about things that are not in the root. How to shut down, deal with a voluntary resignation of a RZ operator, etc. it is high on the political radar. The group has its second iteration.
First one stalled and was restarted. It is about the power of the RZ operators. The power to stay, or to discuss by what way one could leave, join, succeeded by another. We did not start with 13 RZ. Task for this group is to set up a structure that deals with
the issues. What came up: the question of finance. 2 aspects: funding for the structure itself, but also the funding for the Root server operators. Self-funded currently. If we have to follow regulation on what we do, regulation that comes out of the governance
structure, which could be SLA’s or reporting organisations. Note: increased attention for root. We are no longer self-organising, we need financial contributions. To keep in mind. The other question, which is still being discussed: how should the structure
be incorporated? Similar to PTI? Independent of icann and be more heavy-weight? To be further explored. Both sides sent signals that we would not be positive about a domain tax imposed on ccTLDs by that structure. Currently thinking about a model of equal
representation. Equal weight for the operators and the TLD-side. Depends on the current number of seats. 12 for the root server operators, 6 for ccTLDs, 6 for gTLDs. Sounds good, but…. Finding 6 ccTLD reps to participate on a regular basis is difficult. gTLDs
have a similar concern. Can be dealt with by weighted votes. Metaphor for the power distribution. The perceptions where are are different. Slow progress. General questions. The icann board chair joined the ICANN 81 meeting, to express concerns about the length
of the process.
We should think about the level of commitment we could think of in a governance structure. Should that be in or outside icann? And then positions
regarding finance. The latter could stall the process.
Pablo: is icann proposing the fiance of the root server, for instance instead of the one by nasa? They have huge budgets. Why would icann get
involved
Peter: iana sits at the table as one of the operators. The operators that report to the US gvt have not asked for this. This is not about those.
Chris: important to remember that once the root servers that are based in the US were run by universities. Volunteer basis. Fine line, once it
became public. It is important to understand there is a cost involved. ccTLDs and gTLDs benefit from it.
Peter: root server operations should not be a profit centre. Other principles: not sell the data. There have been attempts to get hands on certain
operators. There is no process for closing down, or finding a successor. Big corporations could step up. But on the political level, that is something to avoid. Only technical criteria should be applied for the selection. But that can be questioned in the
end. At the council meeting in Istanbul, I referred to 3 groups: ASO, us and … this is being looked at by GAC. related to the future of the internet governance multistakeholder model.
Pablo: L-root instance. Universities ask about the finance. Credibility, respect, teaching element…. Important topic. Appreciation for your efforts
in this regards Peter
Alejandra: what is the timeline?
Peter: boot-strapping of a structure, and the intermediate steps. One approach might be to take all the open questions, and inject them into the
structure. OR resolve them first.
What might help is - not sure if there is precedence - to have a council SG to look into this, to start developing a ccnso position.
Alejandra: position for a public comment?
Peter: probably. But also to avoid that it appears that i am speaking on behalf of ccTLDs. Getting something in writing on some of these points.
Does not necessarily have to be council only.
Bart: if council would go down that path. What is the timeline?
Peter: we need something before Prague.
Bart: please prepare a 1-pager with bullets with what you think should be addressed by Seattle. Council could then follow-up on that. Have a talking
paper on behalf of ccTLDs. Please send it to me. Ensure we have something ready by Seattle. Potential discussion during workshop in seattle.
Action item:
Bart and Peter to draft input for Council’s discussion and consideration, regarding input for the work by the RSS GWG.
Alejandra:
a.
Update Voting Process
Joke: Voting opened on 4 Feb, and will close next week, on Tue 18 Feb (23:59 UTC).
Byron and Nick have already participated in a Q&A session at ICANN 81. They also took part in a virtual Q&A on 4 Feb with ccNSO members and the broader ccTLD community.
Total number of votes received: 82, approx 1 hour ago (that is 46% of the total emissaries)
No quorum requirement as per the ccNSO Rules and applicable guideline
No irregularities.
b.
Continuous Improvement initiatives
i.Regional promotion
Pablo: on 31 Jan. Trinidad and Tobago IGF. Invite by the Caribbean ITU. 29 island states. Number of participants to whom we presented what is
the ccnso, what are your benefits, and promote the board seat 12 vote. Importance for them to participate. Ongoing conversation will take place in LAC space in Seattle. Perhaps we can use what we did here in other regions of the world?
Alejandra: i did join that session. Was pretty good. And well received. Hard to tell if it was successful. Do we have any expectations?
Pablo: seeds were planted. Raising awareness about ccNSO. Can we identify an increase in participation in the voting? Can we get 3 to 5 new members?
Remains to be seen?
Alejandra: did you join other events, that promoted the vote? Would be good to take into account in the report. We track the number of incoming
votes
No hands raised.
ii. Vote tracker
Joke: a list of Territories involved in the selection process is published (daily updates, at least), showing which Territories voted and their ICANN Region. Table
in a Google sheet. Available to all to consults, included in the Election Notice. Calculates automatically the number of received/pending votes per region.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15e87XDydXstbUmUuy5d50grH_f5B-v9lDXwJfFgsjJc/edit?usp=sharing
Regarding the Caribbean ccTLD participation in this voting: 4 out of 18 ccTLD Managers voted to date. Note: the carib ccTLD managers which are member of the ccNSO
are spread over different ICANN geographic regions: EU (6), LAC (12), NA (2)
Wafa: I can ask African ccTLD managers who did not vote yet. I am happy to reach out to them, and ask them to vote.
Alejandra: good idea. Let us know once you did.
Alejandra: This topic is on the agenda as an alert: in Seattle we are expected to review and assign ourselves to individual roles and responsibilities
in the various committees.
The current overview is posted on the website:
https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/roles-responsibilities-council-19mar24-en.pdf
In Seattle you will be asked to sign up to one of these roles. So start thinking about it.
Part of the annual roles and responsibilities will also be the chair and vice-chair election, so you are invited to think about who you want to
nominate, second or whether you want to stand as chair or vice-chair. Note that there is the expectation that the chair and vice-chair(s) are from different regions! Formal nominations, secondments and acceptance will happen at the Council meeting in Seattle.
Heads up that this will happen. Think about it.
Any questions? none
Resolution
Decision
The ccNSO Council appoints the following people to:
a.
The IGLC:
Devesh Tyagi (.in)
Davi Severiano Goia Cabral D'almada (.gw)
Maria Camila Rojas Azula (.co)
Margarita Valdés (.cl)
b.
The MPC:
Devesh Tyagi (.in)
Heidy Isabel Hernández Lopez (.gt)
Erdem Bayrak (.tr)
The secretariat is requested to inform the committees and persons appointed and publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication.
Alejandra: volunteers stepped forward after call for volunteers
Questions? None
Move? Pablo
Second? Wafa
Questions regarding the resolution? None
Resolution approved
For discussion and decision
As you may recall just before the previous Council meeting and after closure of the election process itself, we were informed that Nicklas is no longer with the
.se ccTLD manager.
We have followed the Regular Practice of:
Both first items (Confirming Regional Support & Former Employer Check) were undertaken when Nicklas informed us about his change in affiliation, and he confirmed
there was no objection from a company he currently consults for.
But we are not addressing the specific case now (later in agenda). Here is a suggestion to formalize this regular practice in the Council Election Guideline, that
the GRC is reviewing as we speak.
Any questions on documenting this practice?
none
Draft Resolution
Background
Over the years Councillors selected by ccNSO members have changed their affiliation, during their term, starting in 2004. To deal with these type of situations, a practice has evolved
that the ccNSO members from the region who have selected the Councillor, do not object that the selected Councillor continues to serve for the duration of the term. In addition, in case the former employer of the Councillor was a ccTLD Manager, this Manager
should not object, as well as the new organization, if any, to which the Councillor would be affiliated. To date this practice is not documented as such.
Decision
The ccNSO Council requests the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) to document the current practice regarding the change of affiliation of elected Councillors, and include it
in the review of the ccNSO Council Election Process Guideline, which is already undertaken. If, in documenting the practice, issues become apparent, the GRC is requested to suggest to Council ways in which these issues may be addressed. The secretariat is
requested to publish this resolution as soon as feasible. This resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after publication. The secretariat is requested to inform the GRC, as soon as this resolution becomes effective.
Move? Wafa
Chris: before we proceed. Just a question. This practice has been cobbled together over time. There has never been a consultation about this.
Is that something we should take out to members, before we go to members, and tell them “this is what we will do”. Perhaps a session in Seattle? No unilateral decision by Council.
Peter: agree
Alejandra: GRC will write it down. Taking advantage of them currently reviewing the guideline. Then the regular consultation process follows.
We are not adopting anything yet. Reviewed guideline will be shared with members, before adoption by council.
Move? Wafa
Second? Pablo
Sean: abstain. This is a GRC-related motion
Peter: abstain
Green marks, no red marks
As to the specific situation of Nicklas:
We have received information that .se has no objection for him to continue. Nicklas also informed us that the organization with which he is working
as consultant has no objection. However, some of the European ccNSO members did express a concern about the change of affiliation and no longer support Nicklas. This is different from cases in the past, for example when Ai-Chin and I changed affiliation, when
no objections were raised.
I shared this with Nicklas and advised him to step down. However, said it will be his call. He
is still considering his position.
Biyi: we do not have a documented process yet. But in this case, where some people who voted are saying no. and the person says: i still want
to continue. Up to the region to decide. The sooner we have a documented process, the better.
Chris: we do have a process. We can point to a number of examples where we used it. We are entitled to rely on that process, since it was used
in the past. Would that mean to re-run the election. We need to move quickly, before he takes his seat. My suggestion is to give him a formal deadline for him to tell us his decision. Given there have been objections, when he intends to continue, we should
tell him we run the European election again.
Nick: did not know about the practice. This needs a lot of tought. My ccTLD has not been consulted. Surprised we have this. Council in personal
capacity
Biyi: the conversation is different, since it is pre-term. First time we have this before the selected individual takes his seat. Person left
the organisation before he took his seat
Bart: the emissaries were consulted. They are the representatives.
Alejandra: not a personal objection from the region against Nicklas. But some members are challenged by the change of affiliation
Peter: process was unclear. Slight differences in the details. It is important to document matters. And to work on precedent. There are arguments
that the current case is different from the past. I abstained: the task description was unspecified. GRC to come up with a proposal.
Chris: i am not sure the categorisation was right. If i understand correctly, alejenandra changed job mid-term. And this process was used?
Alejandra: yes
Chris: might matter what the response is. But this person was voted for, in a role working for .se. That is a material change in the facts. To
some extent it is even more important: he did not have the opportunity to be a councillor yet. Therefore I think it is good to follow the process to ask the emissaries. But he has not yet taken his seat. If he takes his seat, it makes things even more difficult.
What if he sits on council, and his votes object? I think we need to tell the emissaries that we run the election again. He can stand again, not a problem.
Alejandra: I hear you. The current guideline does not foresee this. So it is up to him to decide to continue
Chris: let us have a special council meeting to discuss this. Jordan is not here for instance
Alejandra: let’s do that.
Bart: let’s use the pre-ICANN82 prep meeting to discuss.
Chris: i prefer a separate and discrete call. Closed call. Just open to council.
We should write to him, and give him a deadline to make a decision. To leave it hanging, is not wise.
Sean: if we have a discrete call, should we put together the points where we have ambiguity in the current procedures?
Bart: ok. Not a problem,
Alejandra: we will schedule a council-only meeting.
Bart: proposal is to hold the meeting on 20 Feb at 21 UTC.
Follow-up and next steps Council virtual workshop
Background material: Notes from ICANN81 workshop, mapping of suggestions, outcome virtual mapping exercise.
Bart: we introduce this to you offline
Demi: next meeting in 2 days
Bart: ok, we will wait for that meeting for further updates.
Block schedule has not changed much
Alejandra: reminder about newcomer onboarding session by ccNSO, led by Biyi, on 25 Feb. please attend.
Seattle changes to daylight saving time (Pacific Daylight Saving Time, PDT / UTC -7) on Sunday, March 9, 2025 at 2:00 am local time
⚠️
·
27 February 2025 | 19:00 UTC, ccNSO Council Prep call for ICANN82
●
9 March 2025 | 18:30 UTC - 10:30 local, Council Working session (ICANN82)
●
13 March 2025 | 22:15 UTC - 13:15 local , Meeting 215 (ICANN82)
●
17 April 2025 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 216
●
15 May 2025 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 217
●
12 June 2025 | time TBC, Meeting 218 (ICANN83)
●
17 July 2025 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 219
●
21 August 2025 | 12:00 UTC Meeting 220
●
18 September 2025 | 21:00 UTC Meeting 221
●
30 October 2025 | time TBC, Meeting 222 (ICANN84)
●
20 November 2025 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 223
●
18 December 2025 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 224