NOTES | ccNSO Council meeting 224 Thursday, 18 December 2025 | 18:00 UTC Background and supporting documents * Council workspace for this meeting: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/K4wlBg * ccNSO correspondence: statements and responses: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm Agenda ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. Welcome Welcome by Alejandra Any AOB? none a. SOI updates Consult the ccNSO SOI Guideline<https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/ccnso-internal-procedure-general-soi-coi-21...> Complete the SOI template<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfRpehiCw2ty2PYRiaPG0K3lZSKk9LrLPQe...> Check the ccNSO Statements of Interest<https://community.icann.org/x/doAFEg> Alejandra: any updates? none b. Meeting quorum Claudia: Apologies from Nigel, Jordan, Sean We are quorate Alejandra: Welcome to Nacho Amadoz, the GNSO liaison to ccNSO Council 2. Special Item: New ccNSO Website. Alejandra: Welcome the members of the website steering committee (Katrina, Stephen, Nick) and mention current councilors Everton, Biyi, and you. Welcome Mike and team. As some of you may have noted, the new website launched this Tuesday! Today we want to celebrate the launch of the new website. The ICANN team will take us through some of its new features Mike: thanks to the ccnso core team Old site had a lot of content. Taxonomy was a huge effort. We created new content as well. Mike shows: * the ccnso homepage and the subscribe function. Go to “subscribe” - subscribe.icann.org<http://subscribe.icann.org>. Log in via ICANN Account. Topics based on the taxonomy. You can also choose the frequency, and pause subscriptions * News and announcements (with keyword function) * Timeline based on the infographic. There is also a text version. Any questions or comments? Stephen: looks great. Thank you! Alejandra: we will get used to it. With no further comments I would like to thank Mike and team, first of all for their work and guidance to get to the new website. It took time to get this project started, but once your team was involved we were very pleased with the continuous progress. Secondly, I want to thank you for the very constructive manner in which you collaborated with us! Finally, on a personal note I want to thank my colleagues on the website steering committee. In the end we found a very nice working cadence, which then produced a lot of rewrites and new content!! To formally close this effort I like to do this by acclamation! Thank Mike and team and members of the cNSO website team Mike: was great to work wit you. Very responsive. You always met the deadline. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings. Alejandra: thank you for joining. You are welcome to stay Mike: we will sign off now. 3. Relevant Correspondence none 4. Minutes & Action Items a. Minutes Meeting 223 Circulated to the Council mailing list on 05 December 2025. Any questions or comments? None Minutes are confirmed. All action items completed. Regarding the tracker: that one is still open. For discussion with ICANN and SO/AC chairs. Questions or comments ? none b. Action Items:, * Action item 223-01 The Secretariat is requested to publish the Board Seat 11 Nomination Process report resolution as soon as possible and inform the GRC. (Completed) * Action item 223-02 The ccNSO Chair is requested to inform the Empowered Community Administration (ECA) and ICANN's Secretary of the Board Seat 11 Nomination results (Completed) * Action item 223-03 Following the adoption of the latest Board Seat 11 Nomination Report, the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) is requested to review the Board Nomination Process Guideline, taking into account the recommendations from the Nomination Process Manager. (Pending GRC other work items, GRC was informed). * Action item 223-04 The Secretariat is requested to inform the leadership teams of the various working groups and committees and persons appointed, and enable their participation in the respective teams. (Completed) * Action Item 223-05 The Secretariat is requested to schedule a call between Chris Disspain, Peter Koch, the DASC and Council leaderships to discuss the ccNSO participation in the GNSO PDP on DNS Abuse Mitigation and report back on the next council meeting. (Completed) 5. Intermeeting Council Decisions (since meeting 223, November 2025) None 6. Intermeeting Decisions Triage Committee since Council meeting 223 Outcome Meeting Triage Committee, with DASC leadership, council members on participation in GNSO DNS Abuse PDPs. See item 17 UPDATES Written updates - if any - are published on the wiki space for this meeting. Alejandra: link was circulated earlier today. Review still need. Work in progress. Any pressing issues? none 7. Update ECA & CSC (written updates) 8. Update Working Groups (written updates) a. ccPDP4-IDN (Dormant) b. DASC c. GRC d. IGLC e. MPC f. OMC g. SOPC h. Tech WG i. TLD-OPS SC j. Triage Committee (reported) k. UAC l. CIP-CCG m. Planning Prioritization Process group n. RZERC o. RSS GWG 9. Update Liaisons (written updates) a. Update ccNSO Liaison to ALAC b. Update ccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council 10. Progress Board Consideration ccPDP4-IDN Informational No update since meeting 223 Alejandra: Caucus is meeting in less than an hour. Updates to follow Bart: Caucus is at final PDP sections. Still 1 or 2 meetings after the seasonal break. End is in sight. 11. Progress CCG Review of Reviews Informational Chris: met yesterday. Homework for the CCG. SO/AC leaders received a status update. We have got 5 review buckets * Bylaw review. ATRT type review * Review of continuous improvement * Ad hoc review. Community boundaries. * 2 bullets missing We will reconvene on 6 Jan. Alejandra: questions or comments? none 12. Progress “How we meet” CCG Update. Alejandra: i reached out to Jodi. one of the 2 ccNSO appointees to the CCG. staff recently got approval from the CEO on the recommended actions. Staff is working on implementation. Molehe: no further updates. 13. Update Chair, Vice-chairs, Councillors, Regional Organisations, Secretariat Bart: management of emails. Review of the settings, including the ccnso council mailing list. Was established a long time ago. One of the issues: the archive. To date, the list is private. Only the people subscribed have access to the archive. Only those currently subscribed. Once unsubscribed, you no longer have access. Do you wish to convert this to a public archive? For transparency and accountability reasons, the suggestion is indeed to make this archive public. Who is subscribed? Council members, liaisons, observers, board members appointed by ccNSO. We could arrange observership to all with an interest. Opening up the archives meets already the transparency issue, the observership is another matter. Alejandra: maybe good to know what other SO/ACs with similar bodies like council. Bart: ccNSO is an exception. GNSO and ALAC have this Pablo: support use of the archive. Peter: making the decision retroactively? That might be an issue. No objections opening up, moving forward. Ali: If we don’t allow this, what happens? Alejandra: no objections. Just one concern: materials we receive when there are several candidates that applied for a position? Bart: occasionally there are closed meetings. Using the council list to email these materials ….. If it includes persona; data, that might - or not - be an issue. We can always use the council agenda when we have such a closed meeting. In that case we could use individual email addresses. There have been some extraordinary council meetings, closed ones, confidential material. In principle, all materials should be available Alejandra: cut off date? Or is all or nothing? Bart: not sure. However, why the concern …. We have been careful in the past. Alejandra: 2 things. Archive, secondly subscriptions. Councillors use zoom votes. Peter abstains. Majority agrees to open the archive. Also in favour of opening the mailing list to observership. Bart: we will let you know once implemented Biyi: update regarding the Africa Engagement Forum. Great meeting. Relation ICANN and different constituencies. We presented on the hot topics ccnso is working on. There was also a report on the Coalition for Digital Africa. Also the smart africa project. What is of interest to ccnso: the coalition is giving a portion of the assistance to some ccTLDs. Help them to structure and run certain aspects. Alejandra: thanks! Good to hear it was a good one. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS 14. ccNSO membership update Informational The ccNSO Secretariat was informed that IANA completed a full transfer for .ly (Libya) to “General Authority of Communications and Informatics (GACI)”. https://www.iana.org/reports/2025/ly-report-20251030.html Draft Resolution Background According to the ICANN Bylaws, ccNSO membership is limited to ccTLD Managers, which are the entities listed as ccTLD Manager in the IANA TLD Delegation record. As a result of the transfer, membership of the former ccTLD manager ended administratively. Decision The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to inform the previous and the current ccTLD manager that the ccNSO membership of the manager of .ly ended administratively at the completion of the transfer of management of .ly. The new manager General Authority of Communications and Informatics (GACI), is invited to become a member of the ccNSO. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible. This resolution becomes effective upon publication. Alejandra: happened in the past as well. Following a transfer, there is an administrative end of the membership for the former ccTLD manager Move: Pablo Second: Olga Questions? None All in favour 15. Council Election 2026 a. Progress Council Selection Process AF region Background Five ccNSO Council seats with terms ending in March 2026 opened for nominations from 9–30 September 2025, with nominees required to accept their nominations by 10 October 2025. The sole nominee from the African region did not accept the nomination, leaving that regional seat without an eligible candidate. As a result, the Council initiated a new call for nominations specifically for the African region seat, following the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council Selection Guideline, and the Council-adopted timeline. The call for nominations (Africa region only) closed on Thursday, 4 December 2025 at 23:59 UTC, and the deadline for the nominee to accept the nomination was 12 December, 23:59 UTC. Joke: following the call for nominations and the deadline for nominees to accept their nomination, Ingabire Grace Mwikarago (.rw) has accepted her nomination and submitted all required supporting documents in a timely manner. In my capacity as Election Process Manager, I did not notice any irregularities, nor do I have any nomination observations. However, I would like to raise a procedural question for the Council. Typically, the election process foresees the option of holding a Q&A session with the candidate(s). However, the resolution launching the special African Region Council Election Procedure specified only: 16. the timeline for the call for nominations, 17. the nomination acceptance period, and 18. the potential election phase (in case of more than one candidate). The resolution did not explicitly mention a Q&A process. My question to Council: Should a Q&A with the candidate be organised in this case? Everton: how we are doing on time Biyi: without Q&A, the election process is not completed. However, is there really a need for a Q&A? We have only one person. Alejandra: it is not a requirement. We have done it in the past. Usually very low attendance for such a Q&A. See EU region Q&A recently. Peter: The Q&A should not get into the way of travel preparation for our new colleague, given that the Q&A is not going to change anything Chris: if we decide to have it we really do all need to show up!!! Peter abstains, Molehe as well. Some red crosses. Alejandra: thank you all. No need for a Q&A a. Adoption Council Election Report Background Five ccNSO Council seats with terms ending in March 2026 opened for nominations from 9–30 September 2025, with nominees required to accept their nominations by 10 October 2025. The following candidates accepted their nominations: · AP: Boyoung Kim, Sami Mohamed Ali · EU: Chris Disspain · LAC: Alejandra Reynoso · NA: Charles Noir A candidate Q&A took place on 29 October 2025 during ICANN84. The seats for the EU, LAC and NA regions are uncontested, so no elections will be held for those regions, in accordance with the ccNSO Council Selection Guideline. Elections for the AP region were held post ICANN84. Draft Resolution Decision The ccNSO Council adopts the ccNSO Council Election Process report as proposed, including its recommendations, and formally confirms the election of the following persons: Sami Mohamed Ali (AP region), Chris Disspain (EU region), Alejandra Reynoso (LAC region), and Charles Noir (NA region). The term of the elected councillors starts at the end of the ccNSO Council in Mumbai (ICANN85). The Council congratulates all elected candidates on their election and wholeheartedly thanks Boyoung Kim for standing as a candidate. With the adoption of the Election Report, the Council Election Process for the EU/AP/LAC/NA regions is now closed. The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) is requested to review the Council Selection Process Guideline, taking into account the recommendations from the Selection Process Manager. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution promptly and also to inform the GRC. The ccNSO Chair is requested to inform ICANN's Secretary of the election results in accordance with section 10.4(i) of the ICANN Bylaws. This decision takes effect upon publication. Joke: The 3-year term for five members of the ccNSO Council will end in March 2026, at the end of the ICANN85 Community Forum. The ccNSO opened a call for nominations to fill those seats, and elections were held in the AP region to select the Councilor elect from two candidates. The elected candidates are: • Australia/Asia/Pacific: Sami Mohamed Ali • Europe: Chris Disspain • Latin America/Caribbean: Alejandra Reynoso • North America: Charles Noir In my capacity as Election Process Manager, I listed 4 recommendations in the Report, directed at the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee, namely : GRC to review the ccNSO Council Selection Guideline to determine if they can: 1. Provide clearer guidance on the requirement for nominees to submit an Employer Letter of Support. (several questions from nominees) 2. Introduce flexibility regarding the submission deadline for nominees to submit supporting documentation. (example one nominee, with a week-long holiday for the country, had concerns about the timely submission of the Employer letter of support) 3. Clarify when nominees must (re)submit their Statement of Interest (SOI). 4. Specify procedures to follow if the quorum is not met. As mentioned previously, the special Council selection process for the African region is addressed in a separate report. The Council Election process 2025 will formally close 7 days after adoption and publication of this report. Questions or comments? none Move? Ali Second? Olga Questions or comments? None All in favour 19. Appointment members, or chairs/vice chairs to committees or working groups, if any Draft resolution Decision The ccNSO Council appoints the following people to the respective roles as specified: · Members of the following committees, study groups or working groups: o Frederico Neves, .br - member RZERC o Peter Koch, .de - member GRC o Peter Koch, .de - member SOPC o Ingabire Grace Mwikarago (.rw) - member MPC o Member Study Group on IANA Public Records: § Declan McDermott, .ie § Eduardo Jose Tome Peralta, .hn § Gordon Dick, .uk § Jordan Carter, .au § Peter Koch, .de § Irina Danelia, .ru § Mo YANG, .cn § Chris Disspain, Council § Nigel Roberts, .gg § Svetlana Lobanova, .ru o Member SOPC: § Mo Yang (.cn) § Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy (.vn) The secretariat is requested to inform the leadership teams of the various working groups and committees and persons appointed and enable their participation in the respective teams. This resolution becomes effective upon publication. Alejandra: any questions? None Move? Everton Second? Wafa Peter abstains This is approved SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS 20. ccNSO participation in GNSO DNS Abuse PDPs For discussion Last week the GNSO Council adopted the Issue Report, and as recommended will launch two PDPs. The GNSO is now working on the charters of the WGs. Only after the charters have been adopted there will be a call for volunteers. This is expected in January 2026 at its earliest. At our previous council meeting we agreed that a small group of Councillors and the leadership of the DASC would discuss the matter. The group met last week and asked Nick to prepare a note. This note was circulated yesterday. I want to discuss the matter in two steps: 1. Should we participate? 2. If so, what should participation look like? Suggestion is to discuss the first question today, and the second question in January, if the answer to the first question is in favour of participation. some observations from my end following the conversations to date. * Pros of participating: * Sharing experience and expertise / supporting ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model * ccTLDs have low levels of abuse and are active and experienced in mitigating abuse * Help in effectively reducing of DNS Abuse levels overall * If current ccTLD practices are adopted then Registrars don’t have to deal with procedures that are too different for gTLDs. * To be effective in a PDP you need to be a member and be part of the consensus building process. * Cons of participating: * GNSO PDPs are highly resource intensive. Commitment expectations: * 18 months per PDP (3 years commitment). * 2 hour long meetings twice a week. * Perception: * Unclear if members of the PDP WG speak on their own behalf or represent the appointing group i.e speak in an individual capacity or on behalf of the ccNSO. * Misinterpretation of ccNSO as a policy making body. * By participating, expectations are created in the wider community, including governments, that the outcome of the PDP will be applicable in ccTLD space. * Diluting the “ccTLD national sovereignty profile” not subject to ICANN compliance. Perceived change of profile is already happening with “mixed” ccTLD and GTLD registry operators. Bart: apologies, need to drop off. Chris: Actually the 2 PDPs may well lend themselves to different people given that the subject matter is different… I believe members speak on behalf of themselves unless they say otherwise and until consensus calls when they speak for their representative body The GNSO makes efforts to open up the PDP. Every other part of icann is likely to participate. It is a cross-community issue. Most ccTLDs have just a single jurisdiction. Incredibly important that we seem to be participating in this. We need to clarify the distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs. Just saying we are different, outside of the tent, does not help us. Expectation that this is a fairly quick process. Peter: i was part of the prep discussion. Regarding “If current ccTLD practices are adopted then Registrars don’t have to deal with procedures that are too different for gTLDs.” We should emphasize what makes this one special. The registrar and resources argument is probably not the one. What makes it special, is the observation : cctlds have much less levels of abuse. We can contribute to sth that has led to better results. Thus we do not bring ourselves to any future PDP where we may or may not participate. If we say yest to participation, what if we do not find the candidates that the council is convinced of? Qualification? Lack of volunteers? Alejandra: argument from Nick’s note Nick: i am prejudiced. The fight on abuse is important. The gTLDs have a problem with abuse. If we could help, it would have merit. My local gvt would notice. The main issue is capacity and procedures. The subsequent PDP procedures was hard work for me. Have people that could share the workload. Wafa: is also a learning experience for the ccNSO. Chris: would be useful for us. Let’s think of it as 2 PDPs. let’s just do the first one on pivoting. That is relevant. I am happy to help. Alejandra: thanks for the discussion. We will decide in January. Keep this discussion in the back of your mind. 21. Report ICANN84 Tech Day For discussion Alejandra: nice report of the discussions 2 remarks * Request for shorter breaks. Outside of our remit. ICANN planning. Block schedule * Regarding request to remove interpretation from tech day. The tech word relies heavily on English. But this still keeps the door open to non-native speakers to be aware of what happens in Tech Day. We do not see much speakers in FR,ES. It does not mean the recordings are not used, or that people are not using it in zoom, either remotely or in the room. Pablo: interpretation is necessary. Even if people do not use it in the session, it is good to have it in the recording. Not having interpretation is going backwards. Peter: I have not seen a reason in the report for removing this? Alejandra: I think it was because of the speed of interaction. Not sure it was in the report. But I heard a lot of reminders to speakers to please speak slowly. That add up to this. Technical language is difficult. It could be a cost-saving thing to remove interpretation. Arguments that tech people often need to have English knowledge. Cost saving indeed, but probably too many interruptions Peter: ok, found it now in the report. I understand where this comes from, but not an useful argument Pablo: agree. Majority of speakers are not experts in presenting. They are experts in technical matters. Arrogant to think everyone should speak english. Interpreters should be understanding too. Wafa: all tech people understand tech presentations. Alejandra: should i tell we keep interpretation? We do not need to decide now. We can discuss again in January. I have a feeling we close doors for people to participate. Molehe: as a non native speaker, it is important to have interpretation. You need to be confident enough as a speaker, and as a content consumer. You have time limitations on presentations. I am in favour of keeping interpretation. Alejandra; we will revisit in January. We will decide then. 22. NomCom input request Due date for written input 21 January 2026. Regarding procedures, and profiles they are looking for. Meeting proposed for 7 or 8 of January at 12 UTC. We are waiting for their feedback. 23. ICANN85 Schedule Updates a. Participation in ICANN’s “Trend Exercise” SOPC, Councillors, and Chairs/Vice-chairs Alejandra: please all participate b. Meeting with Registrar Stakeholder Group Alejandra: not sure about time to set up a joint meeting. I think we wanted to have a more open dialogue. Will check with them what exactly they want. Will keep you updated via the mailing list. Meeting with RySG? Let’s wait for the PDP discussion. 24. Any Other Business (AOB) none 25. Next Council Meetings · 22 January 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 225 · 19 February 2026 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 226 · 12 March 2026 | ICANN85 - Mumbai, Meeting 227 · 16 April 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 228 · 21 May 2026 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 229 · 11 June 2026 | ICANN86 - Sevilla, Meeting 230 · 16 July 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 231 · 13 August 2026 | 21:00 UTC, Meeting 232 · 17 September 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 233 · 22 October 2026 | ICANN87 - Muscat, Meeting 234 · 19 November 2026 | 18:00 UTC, Meeting 235 · 17 December 2026 | 12:00 UTC, Meeting 236 26. Adjourn Thank you all for joining. Happy holidays! Hope the next year brings you happiness and peace. Joke Braeken joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>