NOTES ccNSO Council Meeting 167 | 19 November 2020 | 12.00 (noon) UTC
NOTES ccNSO Council Meeting 167 19 November 2020 | 12.00 (noon) UTC 1. Welcome and roll call Welcome by Chair Katrina Sataki. 2 apologies from Margarita and Abdalla. Also an apology from Bart. Recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/OYrzC). 2. Minutes & Action Items a. Minutes Meeting 166. circulated b. Action items and To-do’s, if any 1 overtaken by events. Community Representatives Group: ICANN org sent out a call for volunteers. ccNSO will need to endorse the candidate 1 completed GRC looking into the draft guideline for the appointment of WG/Committee chairs and vice chairs. 2 ongoing 3. Intermeeting decisions (since 20 October 2020) a. Support need to develop procedure for WG/Committee Chair and Vice-Chair nomination b. Approval Chair and Vice-Chair of ccPDP4 Working Group. 4. ccPDP 3 a. Part 1 Retirement – Update Retirement has been completed. Process of carve-out is ongoing. We will need to reach out to ccNSO members to convince them to participate in the voting process Stephen agreed to work on a summary document. b. Part 2 Review Mechanism –Update Latest call was yesterday. 5. IDN ccPDP4: Update Chair and Vice Chair appointed by council. Group kicked off its substantial work regarding the criteria for selection of an IDN ccTLD string. The ccNSO Prelimenary Review Team (PRT) conducted an analysis of the proposed overall IDN ccTLD policy as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013 (Basic Document) by comparing the proposed policy with current state of affairs under the Fast Track Process and also looking at other developments. 6. Selecting members for the Community Representatives Group, which will select the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel a. Update Terms of Reference and call for Expression of Interest ICANN org asked us to look into 3 questions * Participate? Yes * Number of ccNSO members? 2 (but, will depend on the interest. How many will seek our endorsement?) * Ccnso feedback regarding ToR? We approve Draft resolution Move? Stephen Second? Pablo Questions or comments? No other questions, apart from what Alejandra asked previously. To be forwarded to ICANN org with the request to clarify, together with our approval of the ToR. Pablo has no objections to Tor Against? None Abstain? None All in favour b. Selection procedure ccNSO related candidates No general selection procedure yet. We have a quick patch: interim procedure Move? Stephen Second? Pablo Any questions or comments? Announcement was published. Call will be forwarded to the ccNSO mailing list. Against? None Abstain? None All in favour 7. Update Council Election process Update by Council Election Process Manager Question from some community members regarding interpretation of majority. Katrina thinks it is not obvious we have a winner. What do the bylaws say? https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article10 (i) If at the close of nominations there are no more candidates nominated (with seconds and acceptances) in a particular Geographic Region than there are seats on the ccNSO Council available for that Geographic Region, then the nominated candidates shall be selected to serve on the ccNSO Council. Otherwise, an election by written ballot (which may be by e-mail) shall be held to select the ccNSO Council members from among those nominated (with seconds and acceptances), with ccNSO members from the Geographic Region being entitled to vote in the election through their designated representatives. In such an election, a majority of all ccNSO members in the Geographic Region entitled to vote shall constitute a quorum, and the selected candidate must receive the votes of a majority of those cast by ccNSO members within the Geographic Region. The ccNSO Council Chair shall provide the ICANN Secretary prompt written notice of the selection of ccNSO Council members under this paragraph. Katrina says we have an Issue. Majority = more than 50 %. Shall we extend the voting period? Any other suggestion? Alejandra: let’s have a second round. Potentially people change their minds Katrina: people get tired of voting. Pablo: matter of interpretation. The winner must have the majority of the votes. The 13 votes is the majority of the votes. Whoever wanted to vote, could vote. the votes comply with requirement of quorum, does not see the problem. There would be a problem if the majority of the votes means, the aggregate of all the votes? This is open to interpretation Nick: What's the issue exactly though, is it that the bylaw is poorly worded and that really the intention is that the candidate with the most votes should be the winner? It depends a bit on the voting procedure and so with say a single transferable vote system then the majority wording might make more sense? Nick: majority is 50% plus 1. What is the true intention of the bylaws? Is this a mistake? Does the bylaw intend “the person with the most votes”? Thinks it is an error in the bylaws. Up to the council to interpret this as in “the candidate with the most votes”. There was an election, it has been fair, quorum has been met, we have a winner”. Katrina: in some countries during elections it is a requirement that the winner should have 50% + 1. meaning, majority of the votes cast so they kick out the loser until the winner gets the majority. in this case, we do not have a loser Byron: supports what Nick said. what is the intent? The bylaws are poorly drafted. A plurality is what it should be, instead of majority. Shall we take a strict definition of a flawed bylaw? People from that region already made their choice, and we should respect that Stephen: agrees with Byron. The idea of plurality. We should consult with ICANN legal. If they agree, our problem is solved. Katrina: 2 options: * suggested interpretation of the bylaw is plurality “most votes received”. * Another suggestion is before we approve the result of the election, to ask ICANN legal for advice. Anyone against Byron’s approach? Against? None Abstain? None All in favour Second question: do we ask ICANN legal for an opinion? Nick: We think the election is valid. nervous about asking icann legal. It is none of icann legal’s business. What if they say the election was not valid. Suggestion to improve the wording of the bylaw. We should not ask them for an interpretation. Demi, Javier and Pablo agree. Byron agrees. ICANN legal is US-based and conservative in nature. Length of time to get a response is very long. Answer is probably very conservative. Be careful before we ask their opinion. Does not see the value. Nick agrees. Stephen: nick and byron convinced him not to go to icann legal. We interpret the word majority for plurality. Anyone in favour of asking legal? None Suggestion is refused. Suggestion is not supported by Council. A detailed Election Report will be sent to Council for discussion and adoption shortly. Adoption of the report formally closes the election. 8. Terms of Reference Outreach & Involvement Standing Committee (OISC) Any suggestions for an alternative name of this group? Katrina finds it a difficult name. Katrina presents the slides Bart prepared. Do you agree with the proposed purpose and scope? Do you agree with the proposed structure? Do you agree with the proposed working methods? Javier is honoured to be here. What value would this bring for instance to the community excellence award committee? Katrina: there are many committees, groups etc where we are asked to appoint people. The new committee would keep track of the appointments we need to make, selections processes, and keep an eye on community applications. This keep would keep an eye on all outreach and involvement activities and coordinate them. Any comments/ suggestions? If not, Secretariat starts working on the ToR. a. Results ICANN Org meeting survey For discussion. 25 responses. Any comments? Alejandra: surprised people still want to have 3 meetings. Pablo: issues of the timezone and length. Issue for most respondents. Katrina: not sure the survey was the right approach. No alternative suggestions. Support for 75 min sessions. Support for less meetings. Alejandra compared the ccNSO responses with the responses by the other SO/ACs. Different preferences. ICANN cannot please all. We can take away the responses for us. The MPC should prepare things for the ccNSO as target audience. Conclusion: continue to do as we did up to now Katrina has a meeting with other SO/ACS and icann org shortly. Any main take-aways? Alejandra asks for flexibility. 60 min, 2 hours …. Not be too strict. Issue with timezone cannot disappear. Pablo suggests a ccNSO survey, where we ask for how long etc the sessions should be held and when Joke confirmed MPC will organise sessions prior to ICANN70, just like they did prior to ICANN69. 9. Update ccNSO Statement procedure regarding the Amendment of Article 10 ICANN Bylaws Informational Ai-chin agreed to lead the effort on this. a. Draft Council Statement IFRT Draft Final Report Informational to be adopted on-line 10. Update ECA & CSC a. ECA (Informational) Quiet period. Waiting for Board adoption PTI budget. b. CSC (Informational) IANA met 100% of SLA’s for October. 11. Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat 12. Update WGs a. SOPC Quiet period. FY2021 to be presented soon (usually holiday season) Statement to support operating plan and budget for PTI will be submitted shortly Launch call for volunteers shortly. SOPC agreed on a skillset. SOPC plans to have a webinar to promote the call for volunteers. b. GRC Analysed results from governance session. Way forward? Sub-group to look into the rules of the ccNSO. We reviewed some of the not finished items of the to do list. c. MPC The MPC met twice, post-ICANN69: a first evaluation meeting took place immediately after the AGM, and a second meeting was held last week. During the meeting last week, the MPC finalized the “feedback-on-feedback”, which aims to evaluate the community feedback received regarding the Virtual ccNSO Members meeting at ICANN69, and provides the feedback from the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee in response. Feedback from the community on the ICANN69 ccNSO Members Meeting was collected via an online satisfaction survey with questions similar or identical to previous satisfaction surveys. 22 answers have been received. Consult the ICANN69 satisfaction survey results here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67/ [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67...> Moreover, the MPC kicked off its planning for the ICANN70 Community Forum, which will be held at the end of March 2021. Prior to the meeting, there will be a virtual ccTLD News Session and a webinar for newcomers and those that want to learn more about the work of the ccNSO. During the ICANN70 Community Forum itself, the ccNSO will organize a limited number of sessions: A first draft agenda will become available in January 2021. In December, the MPC chair will consult with the current MPC members and will ask whether they wish to continue to be involved. A call for volunteers for additional members will be circulated in January 2020. Other upcoming work items include the evaluation of the ICANN org survey results on the future of ICANN meetings, and a review of the ccNSO guideline on the ccNSO Member Meetings. d. IGLC See written update The IGLC has been established to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance. The IGLC kicked off its work in May 2019. During its last meeting, held on 18 November 2020, the committee reviewed its contribution at the ICANN69 Annual General Meeting, where the IGLC organized a well-attended session on the topic of digital sovereignty. The committee noted the high level of interest for this topic, which it intends to further explore, together with other internet governance related topics relevant for ccTLD managers. The committee also addressed the low participation rate of the listed IGLC members to its meetings. Consequently, the committee decided as follows: 1. To no longer meet on a bi-weekly basis, but to meet once a month instead. This with immediate effect, starting as of November 2020. 2. To verify whether the IGLC can continue to count on the active contributions by the current IGLC members 3. To take the necessary steps to launch a call for volunteers for additional IGLC members 13. Update liaisons a. Update ALAC Liaison (written update to folow) b. Update GNSO Liaison (written update to follow) Maarten: GNSO Council changed many seats. The GNSO Council will formally appoint new liaison from GNSO to ccNSO council later today 14. Meetings Next Council Meetings · December 17 – 18:00 UTC · Additional dates January, February and March 2021 to be suggested 15. AOB 16. Closure regular meeting Extraordinary Council meeting directly following the regular Council meeting Board Seat 12 Nomination Process 2021 This meeting is closed, and will be chaired by Byron Holland 1. Update Board Seat 12 Nomination Process 2. Update & Discussion state-of-affairs Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org
Dear all My humble apologies - I had an alarm set to be at our meeting three hours ago, and yet have only just now woken up.
From the notes it was an interesting and successful discussion. I am sorry to have missed it!
Speak soon and sorry again Jordan On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 02:29, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:
*NOTES ccNSO Council Meeting 167*
*19 November 2020 | 12.00 (noon) UTC*
*1.* *Welcome and roll call*
Welcome by Chair Katrina Sataki. 2 apologies from Margarita and Abdalla. Also an apology from Bart.
Recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/OYrzC).
*2.* *Minutes & Action Items*
*a.* *Minutes Meeting 166.*
circulated
*b.* *Action items and To-do’s, if any*
1 overtaken by events.
Community Representatives Group: ICANN org sent out a call for volunteers. ccNSO will need to endorse the candidate
1 completed
GRC looking into the draft guideline for the appointment of WG/Committee chairs and vice chairs.
2 ongoing
*3.* *Intermeeting decisions (since 20 October 2020) *
*a.* *Support need to develop procedure for WG/Committee Chair and Vice-Chair nomination*
*b.* *Approval Chair and Vice-Chair of ccPDP4 Working Group.*
*4.* *ccPDP 3*
*a.* *Part 1 Retirement – Update*
Retirement has been completed. Process of carve-out is ongoing.
We will need to reach out to ccNSO members to convince them to participate in the voting process
Stephen agreed to work on a summary document.
*b.* *Part 2 Review Mechanism –Update*
Latest call was yesterday.
*5.* *IDN ccPDP4: Update*
Chair and Vice Chair appointed by council. Group kicked off its substantial work regarding the criteria for selection of an IDN ccTLD string. The ccNSO Prelimenary Review Team (PRT) conducted an analysis of the proposed overall IDN ccTLD policy as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013 (Basic Document) by comparing the proposed policy with current state of affairs under the Fast Track Process and also looking at other developments.
*6.* *Selecting members for the Community Representatives Group, which will select the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel*
*a.* *Update Terms of Reference and call for Expression of Interest*
ICANN org asked us to look into 3 questions
- Participate? Yes - Number of ccNSO members? 2 (but, will depend on the interest. How many will seek our endorsement?) - Ccnso feedback regarding ToR? We approve
Draft resolution
Move? Stephen
Second? Pablo
Questions or comments? No other questions, apart from what Alejandra asked previously. To be forwarded to ICANN org with the request to clarify, together with our approval of the ToR.
Pablo has no objections to Tor
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
*b.* *Selection procedure ccNSO related candidates*
No general selection procedure yet. We have a quick patch: interim procedure
Move? Stephen
Second? Pablo
Any questions or comments? Announcement was published. Call will be forwarded to the ccNSO mailing list.
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
*7.* *Update Council Election process*
Update by Council Election Process Manager
Question from some community members regarding interpretation of majority.
Katrina thinks it is not obvious we have a winner. What do the bylaws say?
*https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article10* <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article10>
*(i) If at the close of nominations there are no more candidates nominated (with seconds and acceptances) in a particular Geographic Region than there are seats on the ccNSO Council available for that Geographic Region, then the nominated candidates shall be selected to serve on the ccNSO Council. Otherwise, an election by written ballot (which may be by e-mail) shall be held to select the ccNSO Council members from among those nominated (with seconds and acceptances), with ccNSO members from the Geographic Region being entitled to vote in the election through their designated representatives. In such an election, a majority of all ccNSO members in the Geographic Region entitled to vote shall constitute a quorum, and the selected candidate must receive the votes of a majority of those cast by ccNSO members within the Geographic Region. The ccNSO Council Chair shall provide the ICANN Secretary prompt written notice of the selection of ccNSO Council members under this paragraph.*
Katrina says we have an Issue. Majority = more than 50 %. Shall we extend the voting period? Any other suggestion?
Alejandra: let’s have a second round. Potentially people change their minds
Katrina: people get tired of voting.
Pablo: matter of interpretation. The winner must have the majority of the votes. The 13 votes is the majority of the votes. Whoever wanted to vote, could vote. the votes comply with requirement of quorum, does not see the problem. There would be a problem if the majority of the votes means, the aggregate of all the votes? This is open to interpretation
Nick: What's the issue exactly though, is it that the bylaw is poorly worded and that really the intention is that the candidate with the most votes should be the winner? It depends a bit on the voting procedure and so with say a single transferable vote system then the majority wording might make more sense?
Nick: majority is 50% plus 1. What is the true intention of the bylaws? Is this a mistake? Does the bylaw intend “the person with the most votes”? Thinks it is an error in the bylaws. Up to the council to interpret this as in “the candidate with the most votes”. There was an election, it has been fair, quorum has been met, we have a winner”.
Katrina: in some countries during elections it is a requirement that the winner should have 50% + 1. meaning, majority of the votes cast so they kick out the loser until the winner gets the majority. in this case, we do not have a loser
Byron: supports what Nick said. what is the intent? The bylaws are poorly drafted. A plurality is what it should be, instead of majority. Shall we take a strict definition of a flawed bylaw? People from that region already made their choice, and we should respect that
Stephen: agrees with Byron. The idea of plurality. We should consult with ICANN legal. If they agree, our problem is solved.
Katrina: 2 options:
- suggested interpretation of the bylaw is plurality “most votes received”. - Another suggestion is before we approve the result of the election, to ask ICANN legal for advice.
Anyone against Byron’s approach?
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
Second question: do we ask ICANN legal for an opinion?
Nick: We think the election is valid. nervous about asking icann legal. It is none of icann legal’s business. What if they say the election was not valid. Suggestion to improve the wording of the bylaw. We should not ask them for an interpretation.
Demi, Javier and Pablo agree.
Byron agrees. ICANN legal is US-based and conservative in nature. Length of time to get a response is very long. Answer is probably very conservative. Be careful before we ask their opinion. Does not see the value. Nick agrees.
Stephen: nick and byron convinced him not to go to icann legal. We interpret the word majority for plurality.
Anyone in favour of asking legal? None
Suggestion is refused. Suggestion is not supported by Council.
A detailed Election Report will be sent to Council for discussion and adoption shortly. Adoption of the report formally closes the election.
*8.* *Terms of Reference Outreach & Involvement Standing Committee (OISC)*
Any suggestions for an alternative name of this group? Katrina finds it a difficult name. Katrina presents the slides Bart prepared.
Do you agree with the proposed purpose and scope?
Do you agree with the proposed structure?
Do you agree with the proposed working methods?
Javier is honoured to be here. What value would this bring for instance to the community excellence award committee?
Katrina: there are many committees, groups etc where we are asked to appoint people. The new committee would keep track of the appointments we need to make, selections processes, and keep an eye on community applications. This keep would keep an eye on all outreach and involvement activities and coordinate them.
Any comments/ suggestions? If not, Secretariat starts working on the ToR.
*a.* *Results ICANN Org meeting survey*
For discussion.
25 responses. Any comments?
Alejandra: surprised people still want to have 3 meetings.
Pablo: issues of the timezone and length. Issue for most respondents.
Katrina: not sure the survey was the right approach. No alternative suggestions. Support for 75 min sessions. Support for less meetings.
Alejandra compared the ccNSO responses with the responses by the other SO/ACs. Different preferences. ICANN cannot please all. We can take away the responses for us. The MPC should prepare things for the ccNSO as target audience. Conclusion: continue to do as we did up to now
Katrina has a meeting with other SO/ACS and icann org shortly. Any main take-aways?
Alejandra asks for flexibility. 60 min, 2 hours …. Not be too strict. Issue with timezone cannot disappear.
Pablo suggests a ccNSO survey, where we ask for how long etc the sessions should be held and when
Joke confirmed MPC will organise sessions prior to ICANN70, just like they did prior to ICANN69.
*9.* *Update ccNSO Statement procedure regarding the Amendment of Article 10 ICANN Bylaws*
Informational
Ai-chin agreed to lead the effort on this.
*a.* *Draft Council Statement IFRT Draft Final Report*
Informational to be adopted on-line
*10.* *Update ECA & CSC*
*a.* *ECA **(Informational)*
Quiet period. Waiting for Board adoption PTI budget.
*b.* *CSC **(Informational)*
IANA met 100% of SLA’s for October.
*11.* *Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat*
*12.* *Update WGs*
*a.* *SOPC*
Quiet period. FY2021 to be presented soon (usually holiday season)
Statement to support operating plan and budget for PTI will be submitted shortly
Launch call for volunteers shortly. SOPC agreed on a skillset. SOPC plans to have a webinar to promote the call for volunteers.
*b.* *GRC*
Analysed results from governance session. Way forward? Sub-group to look into the rules of the ccNSO. We reviewed some of the not finished items of the to do list.
*c.* *MPC*
The MPC met twice, post-ICANN69: a first evaluation meeting took place immediately after the AGM, and a second meeting was held last week. During the meeting last week, the MPC finalized the “feedback-on-feedback”, which aims to evaluate the community feedback received regarding the Virtual ccNSO Members meeting at ICANN69, and provides the feedback from the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee in response. Feedback from the community on the ICANN69 ccNSO Members Meeting was collected via an online satisfaction survey with questions similar or identical to previous satisfaction surveys. 22 answers have been received. Consult the ICANN69 satisfaction survey results here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67/ [surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67...>
Moreover, the MPC kicked off its planning for the ICANN70 Community Forum, which will be held at the end of March 2021. Prior to the meeting, there will be a virtual ccTLD News Session and a webinar for newcomers and those that want to learn more about the work of the ccNSO. During the ICANN70 Community Forum itself, the ccNSO will organize a limited number of sessions: A first draft agenda will become available in January 2021.
In December, the MPC chair will consult with the current MPC members and will ask whether they wish to continue to be involved. A call for volunteers for additional members will be circulated in January 2020. Other upcoming work items include the evaluation of the ICANN org survey results on the future of ICANN meetings, and a review of the ccNSO guideline on the ccNSO Member Meetings.
*d.* *IGLC*
See written update
The IGLC has been established to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance. The IGLC kicked off its work in May 2019. During its last meeting, held on 18 November 2020, the committee reviewed its contribution at the ICANN69 Annual General Meeting, where the IGLC organized a well-attended session on the topic of digital sovereignty. The committee noted the high level of interest for this topic, which it intends to further explore, together with other internet governance related topics relevant for ccTLD managers. The committee also addressed the low participation rate of the listed IGLC members to its meetings. Consequently, the committee decided as follows:
1. To no longer meet on a bi-weekly basis, but to meet once a month instead. This with immediate effect, starting as of November 2020.
2. To verify whether the IGLC can continue to count on the active contributions by the current IGLC members
3. To take the necessary steps to launch a call for volunteers for additional IGLC members
*13.* *Update liaisons*
*a.* *Update ALAC Liaison (written update to folow)*
*b.* *Update GNSO Liaison (written update to follow)*
Maarten: GNSO Council changed many seats. The GNSO Council will formally appoint new liaison from GNSO to ccNSO council later today
*14.* *Meetings*
Next Council Meetings
· December 17 – 18:00 UTC
· Additional dates January, February and March 2021 to be suggested
*15.* *AOB*
*16.* *Closure regular meeting*
*Extraordinary Council meeting directly following the regular Council meeting*
*Board Seat 12 Nomination Process 2021*
This meeting is closed, and will be chaired by Byron Holland
*1.* *Update Board Seat 12 Nomination Process*
*2.* *Update & Discussion state-of-affairs*
Best regards,
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.
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 -|- jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Dear Jordan, Nothing to be sorry about, we have nothing but gratitude for everything you have done and continue to do. Best wishes, Pablo On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:04 AM Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Dear all
My humble apologies - I had an alarm set to be at our meeting three hours ago, and yet have only just now woken up.
From the notes it was an interesting and successful discussion. I am sorry to have missed it!
Speak soon and sorry again
Jordan
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 02:29, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:
*NOTES ccNSO Council Meeting 167*
*19 November 2020 | 12.00 (noon) UTC*
*1.* *Welcome and roll call*
Welcome by Chair Katrina Sataki. 2 apologies from Margarita and Abdalla. Also an apology from Bart.
Recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki ( https://community.icann.org/x/OYrzC).
*2.* *Minutes & Action Items*
*a.* *Minutes Meeting 166.*
circulated
*b.* *Action items and To-do’s, if any*
1 overtaken by events.
Community Representatives Group: ICANN org sent out a call for volunteers. ccNSO will need to endorse the candidate
1 completed
GRC looking into the draft guideline for the appointment of WG/Committee chairs and vice chairs.
2 ongoing
*3.* *Intermeeting decisions (since 20 October 2020) *
*a.* *Support need to develop procedure for WG/Committee Chair and Vice-Chair nomination*
*b.* *Approval Chair and Vice-Chair of ccPDP4 Working Group.*
*4.* *ccPDP 3*
*a.* *Part 1 Retirement – Update*
Retirement has been completed. Process of carve-out is ongoing.
We will need to reach out to ccNSO members to convince them to participate in the voting process
Stephen agreed to work on a summary document.
*b.* *Part 2 Review Mechanism –Update*
Latest call was yesterday.
*5.* *IDN ccPDP4: Update*
Chair and Vice Chair appointed by council. Group kicked off its substantial work regarding the criteria for selection of an IDN ccTLD string. The ccNSO Prelimenary Review Team (PRT) conducted an analysis of the proposed overall IDN ccTLD policy as adopted by the ccNSO in 2013 (Basic Document) by comparing the proposed policy with current state of affairs under the Fast Track Process and also looking at other developments.
*6.* *Selecting members for the Community Representatives Group, which will select the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel*
*a.* *Update Terms of Reference and call for Expression of Interest*
ICANN org asked us to look into 3 questions
- Participate? Yes - Number of ccNSO members? 2 (but, will depend on the interest. How many will seek our endorsement?) - Ccnso feedback regarding ToR? We approve
Draft resolution
Move? Stephen
Second? Pablo
Questions or comments? No other questions, apart from what Alejandra asked previously. To be forwarded to ICANN org with the request to clarify, together with our approval of the ToR.
Pablo has no objections to Tor
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
*b.* *Selection procedure ccNSO related candidates*
No general selection procedure yet. We have a quick patch: interim procedure
Move? Stephen
Second? Pablo
Any questions or comments? Announcement was published. Call will be forwarded to the ccNSO mailing list.
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
*7.* *Update Council Election process*
Update by Council Election Process Manager
Question from some community members regarding interpretation of majority.
Katrina thinks it is not obvious we have a winner. What do the bylaws say?
*https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article10* <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article10>
*(i) If at the close of nominations there are no more candidates nominated (with seconds and acceptances) in a particular Geographic Region than there are seats on the ccNSO Council available for that Geographic Region, then the nominated candidates shall be selected to serve on the ccNSO Council. Otherwise, an election by written ballot (which may be by e-mail) shall be held to select the ccNSO Council members from among those nominated (with seconds and acceptances), with ccNSO members from the Geographic Region being entitled to vote in the election through their designated representatives. In such an election, a majority of all ccNSO members in the Geographic Region entitled to vote shall constitute a quorum, and the selected candidate must receive the votes of a majority of those cast by ccNSO members within the Geographic Region. The ccNSO Council Chair shall provide the ICANN Secretary prompt written notice of the selection of ccNSO Council members under this paragraph.*
Katrina says we have an Issue. Majority = more than 50 %. Shall we extend the voting period? Any other suggestion?
Alejandra: let’s have a second round. Potentially people change their minds
Katrina: people get tired of voting.
Pablo: matter of interpretation. The winner must have the majority of the votes. The 13 votes is the majority of the votes. Whoever wanted to vote, could vote. the votes comply with requirement of quorum, does not see the problem. There would be a problem if the majority of the votes means, the aggregate of all the votes? This is open to interpretation
Nick: What's the issue exactly though, is it that the bylaw is poorly worded and that really the intention is that the candidate with the most votes should be the winner? It depends a bit on the voting procedure and so with say a single transferable vote system then the majority wording might make more sense?
Nick: majority is 50% plus 1. What is the true intention of the bylaws? Is this a mistake? Does the bylaw intend “the person with the most votes”? Thinks it is an error in the bylaws. Up to the council to interpret this as in “the candidate with the most votes”. There was an election, it has been fair, quorum has been met, we have a winner”.
Katrina: in some countries during elections it is a requirement that the winner should have 50% + 1. meaning, majority of the votes cast so they kick out the loser until the winner gets the majority. in this case, we do not have a loser
Byron: supports what Nick said. what is the intent? The bylaws are poorly drafted. A plurality is what it should be, instead of majority. Shall we take a strict definition of a flawed bylaw? People from that region already made their choice, and we should respect that
Stephen: agrees with Byron. The idea of plurality. We should consult with ICANN legal. If they agree, our problem is solved.
Katrina: 2 options:
- suggested interpretation of the bylaw is plurality “most votes received”. - Another suggestion is before we approve the result of the election, to ask ICANN legal for advice.
Anyone against Byron’s approach?
Against? None
Abstain? None
All in favour
Second question: do we ask ICANN legal for an opinion?
Nick: We think the election is valid. nervous about asking icann legal. It is none of icann legal’s business. What if they say the election was not valid. Suggestion to improve the wording of the bylaw. We should not ask them for an interpretation.
Demi, Javier and Pablo agree.
Byron agrees. ICANN legal is US-based and conservative in nature. Length of time to get a response is very long. Answer is probably very conservative. Be careful before we ask their opinion. Does not see the value. Nick agrees.
Stephen: nick and byron convinced him not to go to icann legal. We interpret the word majority for plurality.
Anyone in favour of asking legal? None
Suggestion is refused. Suggestion is not supported by Council.
A detailed Election Report will be sent to Council for discussion and adoption shortly. Adoption of the report formally closes the election.
*8.* *Terms of Reference Outreach & Involvement Standing Committee (OISC)*
Any suggestions for an alternative name of this group? Katrina finds it a difficult name. Katrina presents the slides Bart prepared.
Do you agree with the proposed purpose and scope?
Do you agree with the proposed structure?
Do you agree with the proposed working methods?
Javier is honoured to be here. What value would this bring for instance to the community excellence award committee?
Katrina: there are many committees, groups etc where we are asked to appoint people. The new committee would keep track of the appointments we need to make, selections processes, and keep an eye on community applications. This keep would keep an eye on all outreach and involvement activities and coordinate them.
Any comments/ suggestions? If not, Secretariat starts working on the ToR.
*a.* *Results ICANN Org meeting survey*
For discussion.
25 responses. Any comments?
Alejandra: surprised people still want to have 3 meetings.
Pablo: issues of the timezone and length. Issue for most respondents.
Katrina: not sure the survey was the right approach. No alternative suggestions. Support for 75 min sessions. Support for less meetings.
Alejandra compared the ccNSO responses with the responses by the other SO/ACs. Different preferences. ICANN cannot please all. We can take away the responses for us. The MPC should prepare things for the ccNSO as target audience. Conclusion: continue to do as we did up to now
Katrina has a meeting with other SO/ACS and icann org shortly. Any main take-aways?
Alejandra asks for flexibility. 60 min, 2 hours …. Not be too strict. Issue with timezone cannot disappear.
Pablo suggests a ccNSO survey, where we ask for how long etc the sessions should be held and when
Joke confirmed MPC will organise sessions prior to ICANN70, just like they did prior to ICANN69.
*9.* *Update ccNSO Statement procedure regarding the Amendment of Article 10 ICANN Bylaws*
Informational
Ai-chin agreed to lead the effort on this.
*a.* *Draft Council Statement IFRT Draft Final Report*
Informational to be adopted on-line
*10.* *Update ECA & CSC*
*a.* *ECA **(Informational)*
Quiet period. Waiting for Board adoption PTI budget.
*b.* *CSC **(Informational)*
IANA met 100% of SLA’s for October.
*11.* *Chair, Vice-Chairs, Councillors, RO’s and Secretariat*
*12.* *Update WGs*
*a.* *SOPC*
Quiet period. FY2021 to be presented soon (usually holiday season)
Statement to support operating plan and budget for PTI will be submitted shortly
Launch call for volunteers shortly. SOPC agreed on a skillset. SOPC plans to have a webinar to promote the call for volunteers.
*b.* *GRC*
Analysed results from governance session. Way forward? Sub-group to look into the rules of the ccNSO. We reviewed some of the not finished items of the to do list.
*c.* *MPC*
The MPC met twice, post-ICANN69: a first evaluation meeting took place immediately after the AGM, and a second meeting was held last week. During the meeting last week, the MPC finalized the “feedback-on-feedback”, which aims to evaluate the community feedback received regarding the Virtual ccNSO Members meeting at ICANN69, and provides the feedback from the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee in response. Feedback from the community on the ICANN69 ccNSO Members Meeting was collected via an online satisfaction survey with questions similar or identical to previous satisfaction surveys. 22 answers have been received. Consult the ICANN69 satisfaction survey results here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67/ [surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-XFTXKKY67...>
Moreover, the MPC kicked off its planning for the ICANN70 Community Forum, which will be held at the end of March 2021. Prior to the meeting, there will be a virtual ccTLD News Session and a webinar for newcomers and those that want to learn more about the work of the ccNSO. During the ICANN70 Community Forum itself, the ccNSO will organize a limited number of sessions: A first draft agenda will become available in January 2021.
In December, the MPC chair will consult with the current MPC members and will ask whether they wish to continue to be involved. A call for volunteers for additional members will be circulated in January 2020. Other upcoming work items include the evaluation of the ICANN org survey results on the future of ICANN meetings, and a review of the ccNSO guideline on the ccNSO Member Meetings.
*d.* *IGLC*
See written update
The IGLC has been established to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance. The IGLC kicked off its work in May 2019. During its last meeting, held on 18 November 2020, the committee reviewed its contribution at the ICANN69 Annual General Meeting, where the IGLC organized a well-attended session on the topic of digital sovereignty. The committee noted the high level of interest for this topic, which it intends to further explore, together with other internet governance related topics relevant for ccTLD managers. The committee also addressed the low participation rate of the listed IGLC members to its meetings. Consequently, the committee decided as follows:
1. To no longer meet on a bi-weekly basis, but to meet once a month instead. This with immediate effect, starting as of November 2020.
2. To verify whether the IGLC can continue to count on the active contributions by the current IGLC members
3. To take the necessary steps to launch a call for volunteers for additional IGLC members
*13.* *Update liaisons*
*a.* *Update ALAC Liaison (written update to folow)*
*b.* *Update GNSO Liaison (written update to follow)*
Maarten: GNSO Council changed many seats. The GNSO Council will formally appoint new liaison from GNSO to ccNSO council later today
*14.* *Meetings*
Next Council Meetings
· December 17 – 18:00 UTC
· Additional dates January, February and March 2021 to be suggested
*15.* *AOB*
*16.* *Closure regular meeting*
*Extraordinary Council meeting directly following the regular Council meeting*
*Board Seat 12 Nomination Process 2021*
This meeting is closed, and will be chaired by Byron Holland
*1.* *Update Board Seat 12 Nomination Process*
*2.* *Update & Discussion state-of-affairs*
Best regards,
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.
-- Jordan Carter Group Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 -|- jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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.
-- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
participants (3)
-
Joke Braeken -
Jordan Carter -
Pablo Rodriguez