All, as your GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council I received the email below. This should help inform our planning for our joint GNSO-ccNSO council session. Best, Keith From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:18 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting - 4 November 2016 12:15 local time Dear all, Please find below the notes taken during the ccNSO Council preparatory meeting earlier today. Best regards, Joke Braeken Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting 4 November 2016 12:15 local time 1. Welcome welcome by chair. ICANN Board members will join later 1. CCWG-IG The GNSO believes that the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) does not work, something is wrong with set-up. Want to leave as chartering organisation. We have not seen much results either, apart from the recent email from Olivier. Several processes: this WG, CWG-UCTN … Young-Eum, co-chair CCWG-IG: most of the matter dealt with this WG are not those handled by ICANN. E.g. on how ICANN community should respond to other external events. E.g. WTSA recently, ITU sessions in 2014. The group is not becoming in a representative of ICANN. Cooperation with ICANN staff. Is it the right vehicle? Not sure about shutting it down. In some circumstances the group has been helpful, especially to ICANN staff, Nigel Hickson. Bart: was kicked off in context of Netmundial, at initiative of Fadi. Issues a statement claiming to represent the SO/ACs, but there has never been a feedback loup. ccNSO council required a charter, or it would retract from this group. ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC are the chartering organisations. Mostly participants from ALAC (and GNSO). Occasionally Becky, Joerg, Young-eum. Byron: group from a different era. We are now in a different world. Something to be discussed with GNSO/ALAC. Clarity perhaps on next steps during the council meeting on Monday. 1. Status CWG-UCTN Group cannot come up with a consensus decision. Most likely we need to close the WG and need to look for other ways to address the issues. Annebeth: consensus on 2-letter strings. Reserved all 2-letter strings. 3-letter codes. We worked on this for more than 1 year. We cannot come to a consensus there: either open up everything (incl those in ISO list), or keep it as it currently is. Very difficult to come to a common framework. We will deliver a Progress report during this meeting, and further discuss the Draft Interim Report. Discussion with GAC: where are they in terms of geographic names? concern of ccTLD members: if you put all in PDP on subsequent rounds, the GNSO will determine how country and territory names will be treated as TLDS. Council needs to decide whether a letter needs to be sent to the Board: Text AGB2012 to be kept, until there is a common agreement on the way forward. Annebeth believes it is wrong to completely transfer this to GNSO. Demi: agree that this is not something exclusively to be dealt with by GNSO PDP. Be careful regarding the re-interpretation of gTLDs: the “g” stands and should remain to stand for “generic” (Annebeth referred to a discussion around the possibility to call them “global” TLDs) Ching: agrees with Demi. Are we doing the right thing when we block the 2-letter codes? Big corporations are interested. Peter Vergote: thank Annebeth for her hard work on this matter. Question: what is the agenda of the CWG? Understood the 3-letter issue needs to be put aside since no agreement is possible, but why not focus on country names instead? PDP process within GNSO : does it offer a guarantee where other SO/ACs can have a blocking right? Maybe not too bad to have this covered by the GNSO PDP after all? Annebeth : 2 relevant work tracks within the GNSO PDP for the ccNSO. AGB 2012 is default, unless consensus has been reached. Consensus for this group? Or cross-constituency consensus? If 3-letter codes were already difficult, full names of countries and territories are even more difficult. Bart: potential powers of other SO/ACs with respect to PDP. Participation on equal footing, but no blocking power. There are various initiatives ongoing in the ICANN environment, but even in the ITU. Not clear if there is a consensus reached, how will this be translated into a PDP. What would happen with the result of this WG? To be discussed with GAC, ALAC, GNSO and the Board. To be raised by Annebeth and Peter. 1. Topics No councillors will be assigned to the topics, but we ask people to report during the joint meetings. ccNSO-council meeting with GNSO. Tomorrow lunch time - CWG principles (Becky) - CWG-UCTN (Heather and Annebeth) - CWG-IG (GNSO steps out. We need to see how they see these issues addressed in future) - CWG-auction proceeds. We revised our decision from March this year, and decided to participate in this WG. - Future scheduling of ICANN-meetings. HIT selection. Process to be defined. Vote: one per SO/AC? GNSO not happy about this. Many different sub-groups. - Implementation new bylaws Joint meeting with GAC - PDP (Becky, Bart) - CWG-UCTN (Annebeth, Peter) - EPSRP ( 08:30 on Monday joint meeting with Board - CSC (Byron) needs resources from staff. Prep meeting with 4 members earlier this morning. First official meetng on Nov.8. Further resources from ICANN needed, other than Maria, more policy-oriented folks, web-admin people. Conversation with David Olive on the CSC requirements in the next days. - What do we need to do to advance trust and confidence? Bart Go into specifics. For instance discussion on selection process review teams is currently very messy. Do not start with review team where the rules are unclear. That is not trust-building. Byron IANA reporting: dashboard is up, SLEs met, so all is good from IANA-perspective. But we want to look at raw data ourselves. That is a matter of transparency and trust. - Selection icann meeting locations Debbie: Are you free to participate? If you are in trouble of being yourself? Byron: Do not convey a message that depicts another culture as possibly being inferior. Non culturally discriminatory points of view. Who is the ultimate authority to decide on the meeting location? - EPSRP advice Issues of split recommendations: .eu in greek ccNSO created a WG, we asked GAC and SSAC to participate. GAC had some representatives. SSAC refused to participate. Report produced by EPSRP WG. Support from GAC, ALAC, Verisign. SSAC issues an advice and submitted it to the Board. Not to take advice from the WG. Secretariat developed with EPSRP a document that addresses the issues in SSAC’s advice to the Board. Peter: Do not meet with SSAC before we have met Board. Bart: The Board is aware of the diverging views between ccNSO, GAC, ALAC and SSAC on other hand. They are very concerned about it, since they need to consider it, if the ccNSO council accepts the final report by the EPSRP WG. If you would meet SSAC and their advice is still on the table, what is the purpose of the meeting? Exchange of views? Or do you want to come to a joint decision? In that case, the SSAC paper needs to go. Is there a mechanism to redraw the SSAC advice? 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