Dear Councillors, I just posted some Council preparation material – however, the email had several attachments, so if you didn’t receive it – please, check your spam filter. If you can’t find it there, let me know and I’ll send you the attachments one by one. Gabi ------ Forwarded Message From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:20:22 -0800 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Council Preparation Material 1 March 12.00 UTC Dear all, Below and attached is some preparation material for tomorrow’s Council call. Apologies about the late posting. Please, note that the Council agenda has been updated with several new additions. Kind regards, Gabi ====== Council Agenda: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/agenda-council-01mar11-en.pdf 1. Confirmation of Approval of Minutes and Actions 25 January 2011 Minutes & Actions are available at http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar 2. Follow-up Incident Response Working Group See attachment 1 3. Appointment of new ccNSO Chair See attachment 2 (resolution) 4. Membership applications 4.1 .cd See IANA confirmation email copied in below (1) 4.2 .ua See IANA email copied in below *with note* (2) 5. UNESCO Survey See attachment 3 and 4 6. Process of Working Group Candidates See extract of email copied in below (3) 7. Appointment of Volunteers Territory names Study Group Volunteers: Martin Boyle, .uk Henry Chan, .hk Ian Chiang, .tw Keith Davidson, .nz Sokol Haxhiu, NomCom Hiro Hotta, .jp Erick Iriarte, LACTLD (observer) Annebeth Lange, .no Jon Lawrence, .au Young-Eum Lee, .kr Leo Maluwa, .mw Kathryn Reynolds, .ca Nigel Roberts, .gg Grigory Saghyan, .am Maarten Simon, .nl Tan Yaling, .cn 8. Briefing Delegation & Redelegation Working Group Final Delegation & Redelegation Working Group Report: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17feb11-en.htm 10. ICANN Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation ICANN Board Resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 11. ccNSO Website: Closed Section See email copied in below (4) 13. Liaison Updates: 12.1 At-Large Liaison See attachment 5, 6 and 7 12.2 GNSO Liaison Not available for posting ==== To Agenda point 4. 1 Membership application .cd IANA confirmation email, received 24 February 2011 From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:57:03 -0800 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Subject: Re: ccNSO Application for Membership (.cd) Nope, the redelegation is now complete. cheers, kim On 23/02/2011, at 11:26 PM, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

Hi Kim,

Does IANA have any outstanding issues with .cd?

Thanks,

Gabi

==== To Agenda point 4. 2 Membership application .ua IANA email, received 28 February 2011 ------ Forwarded Message From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:52:44 -0800 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Subject: Re: ccNSO Application for Membership (.ua) There is currently an outstanding request for .UA to change the address of the operator, which we don't consider a substantial change, however: 1) They have made it clear to us in recent weeks the current operator wishes to redelegate soon; and 2) They recently applied, and were granted, membership in CENTR for an organisation different to the current operator. Not sure if they impact your decision, but there you have it. kim ==== To Agenda Point 6: Process for Working Group Membership (extract of email posted 26 January 2011) During the ccNSO Council call yesterday, it was suggested by the ccNSO Secretariat to change the process in which new Working Group members are accepted. The current process is that all working group members need to be approved by the Council. As we quite often receive requests for working group membership outside of the call for volunteers period, we suggested, in order to speed up the process, that we only require the approval of the Working Group Chair, and then inform the Council on who has been added. It was, however, pointed out during yesterday’s discussion that in some cases “controversial people” might be able to obtain a working group seat if the process gets outside of the Council’s control and that that the changed procedures in general could be abused by people who were not approved by the Council in the first place. As this probably only would happen in very rare cases, it would be desirable that the Council comes up with a solution which would suit both the wish for a smoother and faster process, but would not leave the Council out of total control. ==== To Agenda Point 11: ccNSO Website: Closed Section (extract of email posted 26 January 2011) As per yesterday’s discussion on the Council call, I’m sending you some information about the closed website section: * When conducting interviews with the community on the new website, it was mentioned several times that there is a wish for a closed section. To follow up on this, a small survey was conducted before the Cartagena meeting. Only 7 replies were received, however, 6 of the respondents indicated that they would wish to see some kind of closed section on the website. * Most frequently mentioned was the wish to be able to discuss Working Group issues on the closed website. However, it was also mentioned that a closed section would be useful for voting or for sharing sensitive data, such as statistics, financial reports or for setting up an “Address book” (where contact details of community members, presenters etc. could be listed). So, the Council needs to decide: 1. Should there be closed sections at all 2. If so: What sections should be closed (only Working Group sections, or also more general sections, containing information such as an Address Book, statistics etc.) 3. Who should have access To point 3: In case the Council decides to close some of the page with general information, the definition, which currently is used by the ccTLD community email list for granting email list access, could be used - namely: “ccTLD Managers, administrative contacts and technical contacts of ccTLDs; Staff and board members of ccTLD registries, as approved by the ccTLD Manager or administrative contact; Observers from Regional ccTLD registry organisations, identified by their manager or board; The ccNSO secretariat, the ICANN ccNSO Policy Support Officer and the IANA ccTLD Liaison Officer.” (see Community email list charter: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf) - other solutions are of course also possible. Regarding implementing a closed section: ICANN has introduced a new tool called Confluence, which is a type of Wiki (a website that allows the creation and editing of pages by those invited to the space). It seems that this tool could support most of the wishes which we received for a closed website. Confluence pages can either be open for everyone, or closed to certain groups. This means that, for instance, working group members could receive passwords for “their” working group and only they can access that space (we have, in fact, already been trying to use this for some working groups with another wiki called Socialtext - but it was not very popular – perhaps due the fact that it wasn’t very user friendly). Confluence also allows for “message board” functions (where participants can leave short comments on topics/documents discussed) and it can be set up so that those who wish receive email alerts of the activities. Once a Working Group is closed, its Wiki space can be archived, if wished for. Furthermore, Confluence can also support some voting functions (keeping the voter anonymous to the community, but open to the manager of the space). ==== ------ End of Forwarded Message