Hello all, Below please find the high-level notes and preliminary action items as noted from today’s ccNSO Council meeting. (18 April 2019 | 12 UTC) Link to the google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FTn9Vl8TeVoLw-OjJF0CldiasJqSq7VdtWUTe-mf... 1. Welcome and roll call Apologies from Abdalla, Margarita, Giovanni We are quorate: at least half of all councillors, and at least 1 councillor per region needed. Welcome to the newcomers. Feedback from ICANN64? Bar stools were a good idea mentioned Stephen in the chat. This time we used a separate room for the ccNSO council meeting. Alejandra and Katrina liked this. Jordan agreed, Laura and Biyi too. Let’s try to have a u-shaped table again in Marrakech. 2. Action Items Majority is completed, still 1 ongoing. We are waiting for the risk mitigation approach being adopted by the Board. Hopefully before ICANN65 3. Intermeeting decisions (since 14 February) · Letter to Board on IFRT · Members to IGLC appointed · Approved membership from .la · Drafted email to ICANN CEO not to use blog posts to initiate calls to action. His response forwarded to council mailing list. Other communities also supported this. Deadline for comments 15 May. No public comment round launched yet. Difference between public comments and public consultation. 4. Next Steps IFRT 3 members were appointed, among them 1 interim-member. All of them ccNSO member representatives. But, the bylaws require 1 non-member. Trang suggested we needed other organisations not to object to us moving forward with those 3 representatives. There are rumours one group is not happy with this. Some individuals from different parts of the community approached Katrina, support from non ccNSO-members. None of them stepped forward during the original call for volunteers. Their candidacy cannot be evaluated without evaluating all others again as well. All 3 reps must be from different ICANN regions. If a non-ccNSO member candidate is from a region, where we already have a member, we have an issue. Ifwe want to do it in a transparent way, and select the best candidate, we need to have another call for volunteers, for all interested, not just for non-ccNSO member candidates. Even if we go via a fast-track change of the bylaws, it is not sure that we can go forward with our current selection. Preferred option for Katrina: We go with the current selection under the current bylaws. However, then we need the other appointing organisations not to object. No clear response yet. Byron: the process requires a formal objection by another community, correct? Katrina: unchartered territory. There is no process. But indeed, that was what Trang suggested. No formal objections received yet, and no green light either. Byron: Trang speaks for ICANN, we need to assume this is correct. Catch 22. There is no objection, let’s move forward until there is a time when there is a formal objection 3 options: 1. Another call for volunteers, to get a third non-ccNSO member representative. But, would be the third call 2. To wait for the bylaw changes. But, even then we need another call for volunteers 3. Unless there is a formal objection by an appointing organisation, we move forward with the current set up. Action item #1: Next steps IFRT: council supports the 3rd option: To be presented to ICANN org. 5. ccNSO Co-chair GNSO Subsequent procedures WT5 Annebeth Lange retires from .no Full support from NORID for Annebeth to continue in her role as ccNSO appointed co-chair to WT5. Council supports this too. Action item #2: Katrina will write Annebeth and thank her for her availability to continue as ccNSO appointed co-chair to WT5. Thanks to NORID for their support to Annebeth, allowing her to continue and complete her work on WT5. 6. Membership application. ccTLD Manager for .tc was contacted: apparently their membership application was not submitted by the official representatives of this ccTLD manager. What to do when there are doubts whether the ccTLD manager submitted the application? What happens when there is a transfer of the ccTLD from one entity to the other: do we approach the new member? What happens if the ccTLD retires? What happens in that case to the ccNSO membership? End the membership of the previous ccTLD Manager? These issues require some further discussion, and clear guidance on these matters is needed. Souleymane advices .tc do correct the data in the IANA database. Katrina: We cannot proceed with the application. Needs to be dismissed. 7. Next steps Road Map review and update IDN overall policy Terms of Reference were shared on the mailing list. We are getting ready for the next steps regarding the roadmap council decision from Kobe. What we need to understand is what needs to be done with the current policy. Adjusted? Preliminary review, high-level, of the documents that are currently relevant. In order to do this, we need to set up a preliminary review team. To deliminate the review that needs to be undertaken. As a triage exercise. Intense schedule leading up to Marrakech, 1 call per week, to inform the council and the community asap on the next steps. We are awaiting a response on the risk mitigation, focus on IDN policy, replacing fast track is a high priority. Council needs to adopt the ToR. Via email vote. Ending next week. Once the document has been adopted, we can launch the call for volunteers. We need to reach out to the current IDN ccTLDs, and some of the usual members. Intense, but short-lived review team.Providing a sound basis for the next steps. Call for volunteers: Giovanni already mentioned his availability on mailing list. Ajay did the same in the council meeting chat Action item #3: Council to adopt the ToR via an online vote. Deadline: 26 April 2019, 23:59 UTC. Once the ToR have been adopted, the Secretariat will issue a call for volunteers. 8. Approval Travel Funding Guideline First revision submitted to council 1 year ago. Comments by Nigel. GRC re-worked the document almost completely. Shared with Council some time ago. No objections. Also sent to ccNSO community: some minor comments received, language tweaks. Updated travel funding guideline. Criteria introduced in this guideline are used for some time already by Travel Fund Committee. Positive feedback from the committee, on these criteria. Council adopts the guideline Move? Alejandra. Stephen seconded. Against? None Abstain? None Action item #4: Secretariat publishes the adopted travel funding guideline asap. After 7 days, the guideline comes into force 9. Annual Work plan ccNSO a/ Mind-map High-level categories where the activities are clustered. · ICANN-related activities: SOPC, GRC, UA · Policy and policy-related work: ccPDP3, IDN ccTLD policy update, emoji SG recommendations (closes at Marrakech meeting) · ccTLD community: ccNSO Members Meeting, Tech Day, TLD OPS, IGLC b/ GANTT chart, based on listed activities. Gives a good overview of the high-level activities and clusters just described. Until 2021. c/ Full description of the different activities. To understand the abbreviations used in the previous 2 documents. Bart proposed Council to adopt the annual work plan by email over the next week or 2. Pablo, Young-eum, Jordan and Laura expressed their appreciation of the mind map. Stephen mentioned there are many things to do. Action item #5: Bart will circulate an email to council by the end of next week, to ask for online adoption of the 3 aforementioned documents related to the annual ccNSO work plan 10. Approval roles and responsibilities Councillors Thanks to those that stepped forward. Final version of the table was shared with the council mailing list. Move? Stephen, seconded by Alejandra Against? None Abstain? None All in favour. Resolution approved 11. PDP3 Part 1 Retirement – Update Discussion on mailing list since the meeting last week. Good progress on the language. The group is rather large, 25 members plus experts and observers. Unequal level of engagement among members. Chair started reaching out to non-active members. 2 members are also Board members. (Danko, Nigel) Both expressed being comfortable in being a WG member and at the same time being a Board member. If there is an issue, this becomes an issue for the Board itself (abstain voting?) or ICANN’s legal council. Board operates on consensus. Another SO member approached us to participate. Still no GAC participation. Meeting face to face in Marrakech on Monday morning, calls every 2 weeks. 12. Agenda Marrakesh Alejandra presents the draft block schedule. Policy forum is a short meeting. Day 1: Monday, 24 June. Council prep, WG meetings, Tech Day, DNSSEC lunch Several HIT/CC sessions : afternoon of each day. No news yet regarding the community forum. Members meeting on Tue & Wed. Afternoon: unsure at the moment. Planning call with all SO/AC leaders next week. Hopefully more clarity yet. ccNSO cocktail on Tue: to be confirmed, depending on whether there are sufficient sponsors. Joint meeting with GNSO councils during the networking hour. HIT/CC: if the topic does not have any relevance to ccTDS, we might be able to schedule something against the HIT/CC that is of interest to the ccNSO. Discussion that 7 blocks for HIT/CC might be too much. Most likely on Wednesday afternoon there will be no HIT/CC, conflict with GAC communique drafting. Thursday: further WG meetings. No joint meeting between ccNSO and ALAC at ICANN65. Draft members meeting. Input from the ICANN64 session on how to shape policy forums, and based on results from the satisfaction survey. ccNSO cocktail, several 1000 dollars short. Not enough funding at the moment. Probably we will not get sufficient support. Option1: get something for the amount we have? Option2: cancel the ccNSO cocktail No support for cancelling. 13. Update CSC, RZERC, ECA · CSC met last week. Performance of PTI for March was satisfactory. One metric to be updated shortly. CSC is working closely with PTI on changing some SLAs, to align them more with current practices. One on technical checks, trivial change to SLA. Second one is related to LGI and IDN tables, needs to go through public consultation and required council approval. Third one is specific to ccTLD community: related to transfer of ccTLDs. Process will start later on, presented to community at ICANN65. · RZERC, no updates · No ECA updates. Board nomination member couple of weeks ago. 14. Update ccNSO Review Public consultation on the assessment report. Webinar was conducted yesterday. 15. Updates chair, vice-chairs and Councillors, Regional Organisations, secretariat. 16. Updates WG. a. GRC Katrina mentioned Special IFR. needs to be coordinated with the GNSO Council. They started looking into this. One of the topics for our bilateral meeting in Marrakech. Not entirely clear from bylaws who initiates the special IFR. Normal IFR is initiated by the Board. More questions than answers at the moment b. IGLC (progress to date) Secretariat is setting up first call. In prep of that call, we will have a meeting with ICANN org staff from global and government engagement. They want to understand what this group is doing, and liaise with them. The board committee on IG has also shown interest on this group. We need a chair for this group. Assessment report of ccNSO Review commented that it is not clear how chairs are being selected. WG typically nominates a chair, and then Council appoints the chair. c. SOPC d. Members Programme Committee e. Emoji Study Group 17. Updates liaisons a. Update ALAC Liaison (written update) b. Update GNSO Liaison (written update) 18. Next meetings · May 23rd · June – Marrakech (24-27 June) · July/August – 22 August · September 19 · October 17th · November -Montreal (2-7 November) · December 19th 19. AOB 20. Closure Thank you all. Bye! Best regards, 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