[council] FW: Notes ccNSO Council Prep. Meeting - 4 November 2016 12:15 local time

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Joke Braeken
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:18 AM
To: ccnso-council@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:joke.braeken@xxxxxxxxx>

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
http://ccnso.icann.org