Dear all, Notes, recording and chat transcript maybe be found below. I have also included the timeline slide presented today. Kind regards, Kim Carlson Recording: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-06nov15-en.mp3 Attendees: Souleymane Oumtanaga Keith Davidson Hiro Hotta Young-Eum Lee Leslie Crowley Nigel Roberts Katrina Sataki Alejandra Reynosa Becky Burr Byron Holland Stephen Deerhake Maureen Hilyard Barrack Otieno Mathieu Weill - Guest Chat transcript: Kimberly Carlson:Welcome Everyone Alejandra Reynoso:Good morning :) Stephen Deerhake:Morning to you both! Maureen Hilyard:Good morning Alejandra Bart Boswinkel:Hello all Katrina Sataki:Hi All! Lesley Cowley:Hello everyone! Stephen Deerhake:Morning Becky! Bart Boswinkel:ADIGO lines: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/Conference ID: 5258 Mathieu Weill:Hi all Keith:Hi all Kimberly Carlson:Nigel has joined the phone bridge Kimberly Carlson:Welcome Barrack Stephen Deerhake:And by 21 December? (Following up on Byrons question) Stephen Deerhake:Mathieu: I have real concerns on a number of items. For starters I have doubts that the cc Community really knows much about what's being discussed now, since during the course of the meeting in Dublin the entire ICANN Community shifted from discussing the Single member model to discussing the Designator model. They are not the same. I think it's critical that the Summary of Changes document be very clear and readible. I also think we have a major outreach/education responsibility ahead of us. Stephen Deerhake:Granted you can't say "do not discuss". But Leon initially described it as a "working session". Stephen Deerhake:OK. Stephen Deerhake:I think the Regiional Organizations might also be consulted to see what efforts they have been doing within their regions (with regards to outreach/education) on the transition; Barrack Otieno:ok Barrack Otieno:Steven Barrack Otieno:sorry Stephen Stephen Deerhake:+1 to Nigel's remarks. The volume of emails is simply overwhelming even if one is really trying hard to keep up with it. Stephen Deerhake:+1 Byron. Young-eum:agree also. Mathieu Weill:Very faint Stephen Deerhake:I did not hear any of that... Young-eum:I'm done. Young-eum:I'll type my response. Young-eum:Basically, I agree with Byron, especially with regard to the matter of the big picture. Stephen Deerhake:+1 to Nigel's remarks. Stephen Deerhake:At the end of the day I think we have to get this correct rather than adhere to an arbitrary set of deadline dates. I don't see the world ending if these dates, based on some pretty magical thinking, are not met. Lesley Cowley:Apart from cancelling Christmas, I suggest we should schedule Council calls for that timeline now.. Stephen Deerhake:Happy to do the work over the holidays. We have to respect the process. Becky:agree Katrina Sataki:now I know what to ask for Christmas :) Becky:good idea to expand, Byron Stephen Deerhake:no objection to the proposal as stated. Becky:could we also avoid December 24 please ... Young-eum 2:agree as well Keith:December 23 will probably be December 24 in NZ! Stephen Deerhake:Maybe move 23td to 28th? Young-eum 2:early in the day would be ok. It's still Nov. 6th here Stephen Deerhake:That's right. Retract that idea. Stephen Deerhake:+1 Byron. Keith:+1 Alejandra Reynoso 2:+1 Young-eum 2:+1 Lesley Cowley:+1 Hiro Hotta:+1 Keith:I have to sign off now - bye all Lesley Cowley:Thanks all. Stephen Deerhake:bye all. Hiro Hotta:thanks, bye Alejandra Reynoso 2:Have a good day! Katrina Sataki:thank you! bye! Young-eum 2:bye! Maureen Hilyard:bye all Byron:Bye all Notes: Council Call - 6 November 2015 @12:30 UTC Agenda: 1. Welcome & roll call 2. Introduction 3. Timelines & Expectation CCWG 4. Decision making process & Scope 5. AOB 1. Welcome & roll call Apologies Peter van Roste, Abibu may be late, Only on phone: Nigel Roberts 2. Introduction (Byron) Special meeting, Mathieu welcome, to provide detailed view on timeline and expectations CCWG Dublin set of sessions productive Understanding Direction of travel of CCWG and anticipated output 3. Timelines & Expectation CCWG (Mathieu) Update current state of play CCWG Confirmed discussion in Dublin were helpful. No change of direction since Dublin. Group has narrowed its options: * Sole Designator underlying model * Progress on Consensus based community decision making * Human Rights are solidified Currently lot of work in drafting Timeline discussion - First milestone: summary report since last public comment. Document send to chartering organisations - End November followed by full report Expect two deliverables: Summary and recap of major changes, and recommendations Comprehensive (full) report end of November Community Feed-back expected by 21 December Chartering org provide feed-back asap. Feed-back SO/AC means: which recommendations are endorsed and which need further work Contingency Plan: for the case one of the chartering org is not in position to endorse report. For this contingency, additional (supplemental) round is needed. Question is whether for supplemental report intesessional meeting of SO or Ac is needed. Any Questions? Relevant for CCWG: how and when does ccNSO want to prepare for question. How does process going to take place? Guidelines for ccNSO appointed members on CCWG Summary of Dublin discussion very useful guidelines. They could also provide reading guide for ccTLDs. CCWG will send out summary document 15 November Full document end November -> max 21 days to take a decision based on full document. Question: How doable is timeline for other SO and ACs? Cautious not to commit to timeline. However others understand need to be very agile about timeline. Idea is to publish as much as possible as soon as possible, but also that concerns raised on 2nd Proposal are adressed. Understanding that it is challenging on everyone, but creative solutions are being sought What is expected as feed-back from community? How will CCWG engage with community? It would be more valuable to focus on SO specific groups; Focus on specific ccTLD engagement. Split CCWG workforce. If ccNSO would want to run specific webinars in conjunction with Regional Organisations, CCWG will be available. This need to happen within consistent plan CCWG expectation: the ccNSO will take a FORMAL decision as described in charter by 21 December. Comment Stephen: Real concerns on a number of items. For starters I have doubts that the cc Community really knows much about what's being discussed now, since during the course of the meeting in Dublin the entire ICANN Community shifted from discussing the Single member model to discussing the Designator model. They are not the same. I think it's critical that the Summary of Changes document be very clear and readible. I also think we have a major outreach/education responsibility ahead of us. Comment Mathieu: Shares concern. CCWG has engaged two professional readers. Also CCWG Dublin summary very helpful. Engaging Regional Organisation and working through ccNSO strongly advised. Question: Would CCWG directly reach out should done by the ccNSO? It needs to be defined, and as long as assigned open to any option. Any other comments? Stephen: What will be happening at IGF? Will there a special meeting? Comment Mathieu: Members and participants will be at IGF, and they will discuss meet. Some have asked for meeting space. Brazil has arranged meting space: However, no formal meeting palnned and scheduled. Two of the co-chairs will NOT be iat IGF. Initial description of meet-up was unfortunate use of words. Nigel: Underline serious concern about meeting at IGF. The ccTLD are in unique positions, all others are part of ICANN. If and when transition goes ahead will have direct imapct on ALL ccTLD (independent of membership). Concern that at IGF, a deal is put together, that is not transparent. Suggest that IGF Lesley: Echo some of Nigel's point. People are understandable concerned about the history. Does not have a feel, who needs to be involved in the effort. Are there hard facts about who has been involved or is there tally about outreach efforts. Action Staff: Provide overview of ccNSO outreach efforts and ask RO to provide overview of overview efforts. Nigel: anybody who wants to be informed, can be informed. Even for somebody with access to all. it proves to be very difficult to follow. From a point of view ccTLD questions the ability of informed consent. Mathieu: So much going on that it can be overwhelming. However challenges notion that if challenging rom inside, the outside is also challenging. If outside, that rationale and key issues need to be understandable, and therefore presented and explained properly. Dublin summary and discussion clear indication. Byron: Absolutely critical that CCWG puts out a digestible, accessible and understandable report. Need to be informed enough, but not at full detail level. Example DNSSEC decision by ccTLD management. 3. Decision making process & Scope (Byron) Process Assumptions: * Timeline is aggressive. * Expectation SO and CA will provide their formal decision by 21 December * Plan B: special meeting ( no real appetite) Further, if 21 December is key decision point, ccNSO process, 7 days for a vote. -> this will drive the real end date. Implies Council should be coming to a conclusion by 14 December. Current council meetings: 19 November. Bring Mathieu and others back to ask questions etc. Next meeting 10 December: Include as item to decide upon. Allows for community to react on Council division in time for deadline. This would meet expectation if the Council intends to do. Discussion on how Council wants to interact. Nigel: * Sense of community was helpful, but does not represent full ccTLD community * Not right or proper to take a firm view, unless public comment is closed.Actually taking a decision, before closure of public comment is unfair, and undue. Byron: We define our own process. Public comments should be taken into account. At the same time, there are deadlines, that need to be met. Question: is Council willing to work post 21 December, but before end of year (confirmed by those on the call) Council: Special Council meeting late December to take a Formal Decision Also need to respect 7 day objection period. Option 22, 23 December or post X-mas December 23, Alternatively 28 December (Monday)Necessity to have quorum, ACTION Staff to reach out to make sure quorum is met. Additional guests: CCWG members and get their insight Scope Utilize same process as for CWG Stewardship Proposal - Members (and participants) CCWG general consensus support as first criteria - Level ot outreach, RO, webinars etc. ( to be recorded), sense of community + Dublin results Consensus on approach forward Summary Use upcoming Council meetings for further discussion. Going forward: * prepare schedule assuming special meeting on 23 December for formal decision * Invite guests for 19 November an d10 December meeting * Prepare Timeline that overlays CCWG timeline and overlays ccNSO Council timeline * Draft email that provides overview and high-light timing * Organise Specific Webinar for ccTLD community * Include RO's in process 4. AOB No comments