Page History

...

June 2016 ccNSO Update

•  UPDATES FROM HELSINKI

 *Member engagement: Travel funding applications for ICANN 57 in Hyderabad are open and their request for applications highlighted a difference between our organisations. ccNSO use their travel funding to reward engagement. (They get their funds from their members so that there is a real expectation of mutual benefit). The ALAC does not have any such fund which can similarly reward ALS members who are not currently in a funded position yet put in a lot of effort into the work of At-Large. In the ccNSO, an important criteria for travel is active engagement in the work of the ccNSO which could include active participation in a ccNSO working group, a presentation at the ccNSO member meeting, or other engagements that strengthen the activities of the ccNSO. Perhaps when we are looking at ways to encourage engagement with our ALSes we too could seek a similar fund to get hardworking ALS members to ICANN meetings.

 *Customer Standing Committee: At the Council meeting, the ccNSO Council has launched a call for expressions of interest for its membership of the CSC. The ccNSO has a Guideline Review Committee (GRC) which develops internal procedures, for example, guidelines for the membership and expectations of working groups. There is one already specifically for the CSC (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/guidelines-ccnso-csc-16jun16-en.pdf), so that the call for applicants is a procedural formality. There is some consideration being given for the GRC to broaden its mandate to include some internal procedures related to the new ICANN bylaws which will require the implementation of new processes and procedures. By having these guidelines in place, any subsequent requests for membership of both internal and external committees are dealt with much more smoothly, so that the discussions that they had within the council meeting really just sorted out some of the details. Similarly for another recent request for a member of the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC).

 The ALAC does not such guidelines and to my mind would have prevented the disorganized session we had in trying to formalize a guideline for ourselves. There is also still an issue about active and not so active working groups that still needs to be resolved.  A proper ALAC procedural working group to sort these issues out, outside of the time allocated for other important face to face session discussions, would improve what should be normal procedural processes.

 Follow-on to the CSC: ccNSO have been notified of the Registries Steering Group and their 4 nominations (for 2 members and 2 alternates). These are:

...

• Elaine Pruis, Donuts
• Kal Feher, Neustar
• Richard Roberto, Charleston Road Registry (dba Google Registry)
• George Soler, United TLD Holdco Ltd. trading as Rightside Registry

 *CCWG-Accountability: A letter was received from the co-Chair of the ccWG Accountability accompanied by a document from the Board’s finance committee. Comment made by Becky Burr: “Everybody has seen the reports on CWG WS1 and various community members expressed alarm about the pace of spending associated with this.  A huge amount of complex work was done. Significant amount of legal work was required.  New process for community, with big budget implications.  There was no formal finance or budgeting controls at one point in time, but this is an effort to change that.” This was accepted by the Council.

 *ccNSO Council survey: during the meeting, the ccNSO were presented with the results of the survey and discussed the next steps with regards to meeting community expectations. Katrina would like to look into ways of improving communication with members Further discussion at the next meeting.

 GAC survey of their ccTLDs – there were only 23 responses. Waiting for some feedback from Alejandra 

 *Pacific participation: It was good to see Vanuatu participating in a ccTLD report at one of their Members Day sessions.  It would be good to get some feedback from Pacific cctlds to support the surveys carried out by both the ccNSO and the GAC. Probably do some followup.  Pua could followup with the GAC survey through the PICISOC list.

 *New member: The ccNSO welcomes .dk, the ccTLD for Denmark as its 160^th member. 

• At-Large Capacity Building Webinar: Bart Boswinkel made a Capacity-Building Webinar presentation to the At-Large Community about the "Impact of the IANA Stewardship Transition on the Delegation, Revocation and Transfer of ccTLDs". There were 23 non-staff participants. The presentation was well received with some interesting queries from participants about the end-user perspective of any impacts. Bart clarified that enduser impacts must be dealt with a the local level.
  
  
• Customer Standing Committee: Current discussions within the ccNSO are focusing on the selection of the ccNSO candidates for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) following the approval by the ICANN Board of the new ICANN Bylaws for the IANA Stewardship Transition, effective upon the expiration of the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and NTIA. Article 17 of the new Bylaws calls for the creation of the CSC to monitor the performance of the Post Transition IANA entity (PTI)  which will perform the IANA Functions relevant to the ccTLDs post transition (see: https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/43-csc-scope-and-responsibilities-v-v2). The ccNSO is required to appoint two members to represent ccTLD registry operators who may not not necessarily be members of the ccNSO. The appointment is required by 22 July 2016. This creates a very tight timeframe for the ccNSO which is currently in the process of creating new guidelines for this selection process. The Council hopes to adopt these new guidelines at its 16 June meeting and to make a formal call for EOIs around 30 June so that they can meet the appointment deadline by 22 July. A set of requirements for interested potential candidates has been provided to initiate some preparation for applications from the community. It was pointed out that no travel funding would be provided for members of this committee.
  
  
• ccNSO Accountability: The ccNSO Council will be sending out an Accountability survey to Councillors based on basic concepts derived from the outcomes of the CCWG Accountability. The aim of the survey is to improve ccNSO accountability in relation to transparency, consultation, review and redress. The survey has initially been distributed to Councillors for any amendments or other inputs. The aim is to launch the survey at Helsinki.
  
  
• The next ccNSO Board meeting: 16 June
  
  

   

...