NOTES | ccNSO Council Meeting 175 | 22 July 2021 (noon UTC)
NOTES | ccNSO Council Meeting 175 | 22 July 2021 (noon UTC) 1. Welcome and roll call Welcome by Chair Alejandra Reynoso, who runs quickly through the agenda of today’s meeting. We are quorate. Apologies from Ali and Giovanni. @Councillors: please add “Council” next to your name in Zoom. Background material, recording and attendance can be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/NIS1CQ Please turn on your camera, if convenient. Item 9: deferred to next meeting. Less urgent now that ICANN72 will be fully virtual 2. Relevant Correspondence since June 2021 None. The correspondence to ALAC: Adoption of the letter is on the agenda of today’s meeting. 3. Minutes & Action Items a. Minutes Meeting 174, transcript. b. Action items and To-do’s, if any All completed. Tech WG Charter Update: See Council meeting in September. 4. Intermeeting Decisions (since 17 June 2021) a. Adoption Members Report ccPDP3- Retirement Ongoing Elections. The vote is to determine whether the ccNSO membership supports the ccNSO Council's recommendation to adopt the proposed policy on the retirement of ccTLDs. The voting starts on Wednesday, 7 July 2021 (00:01 UTC) and shall close on Wednesday, 28 July 2021 (23:59 UTC). Currently: 81 votes received. But: we need at least 86 votes. Read more here: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jul21-en.htm Please vote. 5. Progress ccPDP3 Retirement members vote Irina: Do we have a list of those who have not yet voted? Would help when sending reminders Alejandra: confirmed voting is anonymous. Joke confirmed too. Any suggestions on how to reach out to ccTLD managers to those who have not voted yet? Marie-Noemie: Why do some ccNSO members not vote? Sean: Can each of us be given a 15-20 block group of TLD’s that we can each reach out to, so we know we don’t duplicate? Alejandra: many reasons why people do not vote. Hence your reminders are important. Perhaps we can explain and stress the importance of voting, and explain what this is all about. Ai-Chin: do we know how many votes from each region? Pablo: Working closely with regional organizations (ROs) to promote voting seems to make sense; however, reaching out to fellow ccTLD operators via phone calls or emails could be very helpful. Jenifer: Maybe they have registered a wrong email? Alejandra: Joke has updated the list Jiankang: have a question and answer session, or FAQ posted. That might help in promoting the voting. Alejandra: We had such sessions already. Secretariat to send a short summary, in the reminders to vote. 6. CSC Related matters a. 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review CSC monitors performance IANA naming function Additional element: have recommendations from previous reviews been implemented? Template. GNSO Council expects to adopt that in the August meeting. Bart displays a .ppt: * Need review * Method effectiveness review. Same procedure, since it has proven previously it works. Touches on all aspects of the CSC. Secondly, it allows for comparison of the CSC effectiveness over time. * Review process * Timeline. Closure in March 2022 (adoption of the final report) b. Update CSC call for expression of interest In April 2021 one of the two current ccNSO appointed members on the CSC, Alejandra Reynoso, indicated she wants to step down from the CSC as she was elected Chair of the ccNSO. Following a call for expressions of interest and a Council selection process, Frederico Neves (.br) was appointed in June 2021 for the remainder of Alejandra's term. Next term starts in October. Hence the new call for EoI. See: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07jul21-en.htm Currently we have received 2 applications, potentially a third one coming in. Council will need to select its preferred candidate. c. CSC update See written update 7. Progress expanded role Triage committee See background material. Evolution triage committee. Nick: charter review is due. Marie-Noemie: prioritising method. Current status: Currently, the Triage Committee is dedicated to quickly review incoming requests for input and make a suggestion to the Council on how to react to the requests. To better balance the workload against the available resources, Council suggested an expanded mandate for the Triage Committee, which includes work on the Council work plan prioritisation. The Triage Committee had its first meeting on 13 July, where the committee members discussed the future role of the Triage Committee, the evolution of the committee and an outline of its new role. Next steps: During its next meeting, scheduled for 17 August, the Triage committee will have a discussion on the prioritisation method to be used for the Council work plan, as well as a high-level discussion on the changes that are needed to its Charter. It will also begin the work of prioritising the work plan, ready for Council consideration in September (in advance of the start of the October-December quarter). Objections or questions? None. Bart: council adopted the baseline of activities at the previous meeting. Jordan and Bart to identify 2 or 3 major work items, detail them, and see if the method of prioritisation would work. Related: the Triage Committee in time will have an oversight role, especially for those work items fully under control of the ccNSO. Some work items are bylaw driven, but there are others where there is more flexibility: For the latter a bit more oversight and accountability would be efficient. 8. ICANN proposal to create an ad-hoc community representative group to coordinate on those WS2 recommendations where community prioritization and coordination may be required Alejandra mentioned 2 reasons to include this on the agenda: * Workshop by icann org from last week. ICANN org held a Planning & Prioritization Framework teleconference with the SOPC (call #1 | 14 July at 13:00 UTC). The SOPC will continue the discussions with the org planning dept regarding an ICANN org project to design a work prioritization framework that once agreed upon will become a step in the ICANN Annual Operating Planning process. The second workshop (Call #2 | 26 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC) will include the review of several researched prioritization techniques to see which ones fit the ICANN model the best. Call #2 is relevant for the Triage Committee too: different scale and scope, but nonetheless relevant. * WS2 recommendations implementation. See next SO/AC roundtable. Suggestion by ICANN org planning team to create an ad-hoc group to work on this. So far we have a checklist of the WS2 recommendations. Not seen as a project. Has been effective. Many are already implemented or ongoing. How much time and resources will this joint effort take? Comments? Suggestions? none 9. ICANN Hybrid Meeting: what are the requirements from a Council perspective? Deferred to the next meeting (September Council meeting). ICANN72 will be fully virtual. Lessons learned from virtual meetings, and start preparations for ICANN72. Monday leadership meeting. 10. Update ALAC -session ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies from At-Large End Users MPC has a wrap-up meeting after every public ICANN meeting. During the ICANN71 wrap-up, concerns were raised regarding the ALAC session. The concerns were brought to the attention of council. A draft letter has been circulated, from Council to ALAC. Draft was further reviewed after a letter by Garth Miller. Balance: ccNSO needs to continue a good relationship with ALAC. also in light of being a Decisional Participant. Concerns regarding the content of some presentations (mixing up ccTLDs, not speaking to the agreed purpose etc) but also the organisation and prep of the meeting. Letter addresses the concerns, and is forward-looking. Any comments concerning the process that was followed? (not addressing the substance) We will use the annotation-tool in Zoom. similar to “temperature of the room” exercise Responses range from 5 to 8 (9). Quite a number of marks in the 5-6 range. Bart: What is needed to turn this into a process where you have confidence in? Stephen: see correspondence to mailing list from 15 July. Bart: That is on the substance? Stephen: My letter was a comment on the substance indeed. But regarding the process, we should have had an extraordinary council meeting as part of the process. Bart: fair comment from Stephen Nick: hard to schedule extra calls. Rated the process favourably. It was done methodically, and all had the opportunity to contribute to the google doc. Heads up to Maureen, and we know we can expect an apology on this. Javier: found process was inclusive, efficient. Alejandra: Final comments on the draft letter are due on Monday next week. The best is the enemy of good. The letter sends a clear message, but also leaves the door open to future collaboration. Stephen: abstains. Letter is not strong enough. Resolution Move? Javier Second? Pablo Abstain? Stephen Objections? None All in favour 11. Update ICANN Learn Course Any concerns if we move this to an online approval process? No objections. 12. Is there a role for the ccNSO in facilitating the discussion across the ccTLD community with respect to DNS Abuse? See the AOB from the previous Council meeting. Recurring topic. There are a number of DNS Abuse-related sessions and contributions, including during the ccNSO members meeting, ccTLD News sessions, Tech Day etc. GNSO reached out to us. Alejandra explains the exercise (3-12-3 game). Councillors and others expressed their views on the ccNSO and DNS Abuse. Councillors and others asked to identify the top 3 aspects in this respect, and assessed their impact (impact on helping ccTLDs to deal with DNS Abuse) and effort level (what does it take to produce the envisioned result). As a next step, the Secretariat will provide a summary and will formulate a suggested way forward, which will be included into an action plan, which will be sent to Council for their consideration and adoption. Brainstorming report | 3-12-3 game:
Group 1
Bart: * Create blacklist. Terminated registrars across ccTLDs. High effort, very high effort * Sharing information. Increase news. Middle impact to high, middle effort. Supported by all as a quick win. Develop a repository on what has already been presented on what ccTLDs are doing. Easy accessible to everyone else. * Develop common approaches: high effort, high impact (not discussed, but this is Irina’s suggestion)
Group 2
Alejandra: * Repository, good practices. Inspiration for ccTLDs * DNS Abuse WG within ccNSO to handle this. To channel communicatins. High impact, but also high effort. * Channel of communication: council chair. Low impact (just 1 person), but high effort.
Group 3
Pablo: * Collaborate with GNSO RySG on definition of DNS Abuse. high interests in common. Quick win if we agree with the RySG. low effort, high impact. RySG has already a definition. Work has been done there. Maybe we could adopt the same definition? Work has been done already. Send to ccTLD community as a standard. Not be part of the conversation. Should not appear to be a vacuum of what the ccNSO appears to be doing * Webinar. Info sharing for ccTLDs. High impact, low effort * Develop best practices for ccTLD managers. high efforts, many different policies and cctld are different. High effort. Since it is optional, impact probably not so high
Main Group
Barrack: * High impact, high effort. Participate in the ongoing ICANN decisions. Conversations in contracted parties house on DNS abuse * High impact, low effort. Discuss what is DNS Abuse within ccTLD environment. Issues that affect registries, registrars * Efforts on what has been done already. In terms of TLD OPS for instance General feeling: * ccTLDs are protectors of ecosystem. More and more regulations forced on ccTLDs Next step: Now that councillors and others assessed the impact (impact on helping ccTLDs to deal with DNS Abuse) and effort level (what does it take to produce the envisioned result). As a next step, the Secretariat will provide a summary and will formulate a suggested way forward, which will be included into an action plan, which will be sent to Council for their consideration and adoption. 13. Updates ccPDPs a. Update ccPDP3 - Review Mechanism b. Update IDN ccPDP4 14. Update ECA 15. Update Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat 16. Update WGs c. SOPC d. IGLC e. GRC f. OISC g. TLD-OPS h. Technical WG i. MPC 17. Update liaisons j. Update ALAC Liaison (written update) k. Update GNSO Liaison (written update) 18. Next Meetings 16 September 2021 – 20:00 UTC October @ ICANN72 (23-28 October) 18 November 2021 – 12:00 UTC 17 December 2021 – 18:00 UTC 19. AOB Two from Alejandra: 1. If you have not done so, please provide your input to the GRC Rules sub-group survey! To complete the survey: https://forms.gle/z2sUS7Bzg3JyUN7u5 2. Secondly, next week we will need to start thinking about our bilateral meetings, and other ICANN72 related sessions. We will not have a Council meeting in August so we need to start prep our sessions off-line. Our September meeting will be too late! 20. Closure Next meeting 16 September 2021 – 20:00 UTC Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org
Thank you Joke for the notes. Regarding our concerns about the ccPDP3 Retirement members vote, I checked with NIC.UY and they told me that LACTLD conducted a webinar explaining about the PDP vote and also promoted voting in their mailing list. I will continue checking with other ccTLDs. Are the rest of the R.O doing the same? Maybe Joke can keep us updated about the votation progress? Thank you! Best Regards, Laura Margolis El jue, 22 jul 2021 a las 10:42, Joke Braeken via Ccnso-council (< ccnso-council@icann.org>) escribió:
*NOTES | ccNSO Council Meeting 175 | 22 July 2021 (noon UTC)*
*1.* *Welcome and roll call*
Welcome by Chair Alejandra Reynoso, who runs quickly through the agenda of today’s meeting.
We are quorate. Apologies from Ali and Giovanni.
@Councillors: please add “Council” next to your name in Zoom.
Background material, recording and attendance can be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/NIS1CQ
Please turn on your camera, if convenient.
Item 9: deferred to next meeting. Less urgent now that ICANN72 will be fully virtual
*2.* *Relevant Correspondence since June 2021*
None.
The correspondence to ALAC: Adoption of the letter is on the agenda of today’s meeting.
*3.* *Minutes & Action Items*
*a.* *Minutes Meeting 174, transcript.*
*b.* *Action items and To-do’s, if any*
All completed.
Tech WG Charter Update: See Council meeting in September.
*4.* *Intermeeting Decisions (since 17 June 2021)*
*a.* *Adoption Members Report ccPDP3- Retirement*
Ongoing Elections.
The vote is to determine whether the ccNSO membership supports the ccNSO Council's recommendation to adopt the proposed policy on the retirement of ccTLDs. The voting starts on Wednesday, 7 July 2021 (00:01 UTC) and shall close on Wednesday, 28 July 2021 (23:59 UTC).
Currently: 81 votes received. But: we need at least 86 votes.
Read more here: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jul21-en.htm
Please vote.
*5.* *Progress ccPDP3 Retirement members vote*
Irina: Do we have a list of those who have not yet voted? Would help when sending reminders
Alejandra: confirmed voting is anonymous. Joke confirmed too.
Any suggestions on how to reach out to ccTLD managers to those who have not voted yet?
Marie-Noemie: Why do some ccNSO members not vote?
Sean: Can each of us be given a 15-20 block group of TLD’s that we can each reach out to, so we know we don’t duplicate?
Alejandra: many reasons why people do not vote.
Hence your reminders are important. Perhaps we can explain and stress the importance of voting, and explain what this is all about.
Ai-Chin: do we know how many votes from each region?
Pablo: Working closely with regional organizations (ROs) to promote voting seems to make sense; however, reaching out to fellow ccTLD operators via phone calls or emails could be very helpful.
Jenifer: Maybe they have registered a wrong email?
Alejandra: Joke has updated the list
Jiankang: have a question and answer session, or FAQ posted. That might help in promoting the voting.
Alejandra: We had such sessions already. Secretariat to send a short summary, in the reminders to vote.
*6.* *CSC Related matters*
*a.* *2**nd CSC Effectiveness Review*
CSC monitors performance IANA naming function
Additional element: have recommendations from previous reviews been implemented?
Template. GNSO Council expects to adopt that in the August meeting.
Bart displays a .ppt:
- Need review - Method effectiveness review. Same procedure, since it has proven previously it works. Touches on all aspects of the CSC. Secondly, it allows for comparison of the CSC effectiveness over time. - Review process - Timeline. Closure in March 2022 (adoption of the final report)
*b.* *Update CSC call for expression of interest*
In April 2021 one of the two current ccNSO appointed members on the CSC, Alejandra Reynoso, indicated she wants to step down from the CSC as she was elected Chair of the ccNSO. Following a call for expressions of interest and a Council selection process, Frederico Neves (.br) was appointed in June 2021 for the remainder of Alejandra's term.
Next term starts in October. Hence the new call for EoI. See:
https://ccnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07jul21-en.htm
Currently we have received 2 applications, potentially a third one coming in. Council will need to select its preferred candidate.
*c.* *CSC update*
See written update
*7.* *Progress expanded role Triage committee*
See background material. Evolution triage committee.
Nick: charter review is due.
Marie-Noemie: prioritising method.
Current status:
Currently, the Triage Committee is dedicated to quickly review incoming requests for input and make a suggestion to the Council on how to react to the requests. To better balance the workload against the available resources, Council suggested an expanded mandate for the Triage Committee, which includes work on the Council work plan prioritisation. The Triage Committee had its first meeting on 13 July, where the committee members discussed the future role of the Triage Committee, the evolution of the committee and an outline of its new role.
Next steps:
During its next meeting, scheduled for 17 August, the Triage committee will have a discussion on the prioritisation method to be used for the Council work plan, as well as a high-level discussion on the changes that are needed to its Charter. It will also begin the work of prioritising the work plan, ready for Council consideration in September (in advance of the start of the October-December quarter).
Objections or questions? None.
Bart: council adopted the baseline of activities at the previous meeting. Jordan and Bart to identify 2 or 3 major work items, detail them, and see if the method of prioritisation would work. Related: the Triage Committee in time will have an oversight role, especially for those work items fully under control of the ccNSO. Some work items are bylaw driven, but there are others where there is more flexibility: For the latter a bit more oversight and accountability would be efficient.
*8.* *ICANN proposal to create an ad-hoc community representative group to coordinate on those WS2 recommendations where community prioritization and coordination may be required*
Alejandra mentioned 2 reasons to include this on the agenda:
- Workshop by icann org from last week. ICANN org held a Planning & Prioritization Framework teleconference with the SOPC (call #1 | 14 July at 13:00 UTC). The SOPC will continue the discussions with the org planning dept regarding an ICANN org project to design a work prioritization framework that once agreed upon will become a step in the ICANN Annual Operating Planning process. The second workshop (Call #2 | 26 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC) will include the review of several researched prioritization techniques to see which ones fit the ICANN model the best. Call #2 is relevant for the Triage Committee too: different scale and scope, but nonetheless relevant. - WS2 recommendations implementation. See next SO/AC roundtable. Suggestion by ICANN org planning team to create an ad-hoc group to work on this.
So far we have a checklist of the WS2 recommendations. Not seen as a project. Has been effective. Many are already implemented or ongoing. How much time and resources will this joint effort take?
Comments? Suggestions? none
*9.* *ICANN Hybrid Meeting: what are the requirements from a Council perspective?*
Deferred to the next meeting (September Council meeting). ICANN72 will be fully virtual.
Lessons learned from virtual meetings, and start preparations for ICANN72. Monday leadership meeting.
*10.* *Update ALAC -session ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies from At-Large End Users*
MPC has a wrap-up meeting after every public ICANN meeting. During the ICANN71 wrap-up, concerns were raised regarding the ALAC session. The concerns were brought to the attention of council. A draft letter has been circulated, from Council to ALAC. Draft was further reviewed after a letter by Garth Miller.
Balance: ccNSO needs to continue a good relationship with ALAC. also in light of being a Decisional Participant. Concerns regarding the content of some presentations (mixing up ccTLDs, not speaking to the agreed purpose etc) but also the organisation and prep of the meeting.
Letter addresses the concerns, and is forward-looking.
Any comments concerning the process that was followed? (not addressing the substance)
We will use the annotation-tool in Zoom. similar to “temperature of the room” exercise
Responses range from 5 to 8 (9).
Quite a number of marks in the 5-6 range.
Bart: What is needed to turn this into a process where you have confidence in?
Stephen: see correspondence to mailing list from 15 July.
Bart: That is on the substance?
Stephen: My letter was a comment on the substance indeed. But regarding the process, we should have had an extraordinary council meeting as part of the process.
Bart: fair comment from Stephen
Nick: hard to schedule extra calls. Rated the process favourably. It was done methodically, and all had the opportunity to contribute to the google doc. Heads up to Maureen, and we know we can expect an apology on this.
Javier: found process was inclusive, efficient.
Alejandra: Final comments on the draft letter are due on Monday next week. The best is the enemy of good. The letter sends a clear message, but also leaves the door open to future collaboration.
Stephen: abstains. Letter is not strong enough.
Resolution
Move? Javier
Second? Pablo
Abstain? Stephen
Objections? None
All in favour
*11.* *Update ICANN Learn Course*
Any concerns if we move this to an online approval process? No objections.
*12. Is there a role for the ccNSO in facilitating the discussion across the ccTLD community with respect to DNS Abuse?*
See the AOB from the previous Council meeting.
Recurring topic. There are a number of DNS Abuse-related sessions and contributions, including during the ccNSO members meeting, ccTLD News sessions, Tech Day etc. GNSO reached out to us.
Alejandra explains the exercise (3-12-3 game). Councillors and others expressed their views on the ccNSO and DNS Abuse. Councillors and others asked to identify the top 3 aspects in this respect, and assessed their impact (impact on helping ccTLDs to deal with DNS Abuse) and effort level (what does it take to produce the envisioned result). As a next step, the Secretariat will provide a summary and will formulate a suggested way forward, which will be included into an action plan, which will be sent to Council for their consideration and adoption.
Brainstorming report | 3-12-3 game:
Group 1
Bart:
- Create blacklist. Terminated registrars across ccTLDs. High effort, very high effort - Sharing information. Increase news. Middle impact to high, middle effort. Supported by all as a quick win. Develop a repository on what has already been presented on what ccTLDs are doing. Easy accessible to everyone else. - Develop common approaches: high effort, high impact (not discussed, but this is Irina’s suggestion)
Group 2
Alejandra:
- Repository, good practices. Inspiration for ccTLDs - DNS Abuse WG within ccNSO to handle this. To channel communicatins. High impact, but also high effort. - Channel of communication: council chair. Low impact (just 1 person), but high effort.
Group 3
Pablo:
- Collaborate with GNSO RySG on definition of DNS Abuse. high interests in common. Quick win if we agree with the RySG. low effort, high impact. RySG has already a definition. Work has been done there. Maybe we could adopt the same definition? Work has been done already. Send to ccTLD community as a standard. Not be part of the conversation. Should not appear to be a vacuum of what the ccNSO appears to be doing - Webinar. Info sharing for ccTLDs. High impact, low effort - Develop best practices for ccTLD managers. high efforts, many different policies and cctld are different. High effort. Since it is optional, impact probably not so high
Main Group
Barrack:
- High impact, high effort. Participate in the ongoing ICANN decisions. Conversations in contracted parties house on DNS abuse - High impact, low effort. Discuss what is DNS Abuse within ccTLD environment. Issues that affect registries, registrars - Efforts on what has been done already. In terms of TLD OPS for instance
General feeling:
- ccTLDs are protectors of ecosystem. More and more regulations forced on ccTLDs
Next step:
Now that councillors and others assessed the impact (impact on helping ccTLDs to deal with DNS Abuse) and effort level (what does it take to produce the envisioned result). As a next step, the Secretariat will provide a summary and will formulate a suggested way forward, which will be included into an action plan, which will be sent to Council for their consideration and adoption.
*13. Updates ccPDPs*
*a.* *Update ccPDP3 - Review Mechanism*
*b.* *Update IDN ccPDP4*
*14. Update ECA*
*15. Update Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat*
*16. Update WGs*
*c.* *SOPC*
*d.* *IGLC*
*e.* *GRC*
*f.* *OISC*
*g.* *TLD-OPS*
*h.* *Technical WG*
*i.* *MPC*
*17. Update liaisons*
*j.* *Update ALAC Liaison (written update)*
*k.* *Update GNSO Liaison (written update)*
*18. Next Meetings*
16 September 2021 – 20:00 UTC
October @ ICANN72 (23-28 October)
18 November 2021 – 12:00 UTC
17 December 2021 – 18:00 UTC
*19. AOB*
Two from Alejandra:
1. If you have not done so, please provide your input to the GRC Rules sub-group survey! To complete the survey: https://forms.gle/z2sUS7Bzg3JyUN7u5 2. Secondly, next week we will need to start thinking about our bilateral meetings, and other ICANN72 related sessions. We will not have a Council meeting in August so we need to start prep our sessions off-line. Our September meeting will be too late!
*20. Closure*
Next meeting 16 September 2021 – 20:00 UTC
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Laura Margolis +598 99690992 skype: lauri.margolis
participants (2)
-
Joke Braeken -
Laura Margolis