Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome and SOI Updates (2 min)
2. Announcements, Work plan and upcoming meeting schedule (5 min)

           a.  Provide inputs [docs.google.com] to CIP-CCG Framework for the GNSO Council

       3.CCOICI Charter Update (50 min)

           a. Review past and future use cases [docs.google.com]

           b.Continue to review comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider

       4.Next Steps & AOB (3 mins)

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Notes/ Action Items

Notes and Action Items from CCOICI meeting on Wednesday, 07 August 2024, 13:00 UTC.
 
[Action Items]
1. Leadership requests the Team to review the document to CIP-CCG Framework [docs.google.com] for the GNSO Council and provide input.
2. Leadership requests the Team to review the comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider and provide input – Can be individual feedback and not necessarily representing the SG/C’s feedback.
 
[Notes]
Welcome and SOI Updates
Happy Olympics – Paris 2024!
Announcements, Work plan and upcoming meeting schedule
Announcement: Wednesday, 14 August Meeting will be an hour earlier (12:00 UTC) due to Community Outreach Board Meeting conflict
a.       Provide inputs [docs.google.com] to CIP-CCG Framework for the GNSO Council
Requesting inputs from the Team to the google doc.
07 August CIP-CCG Meeting was cancelled.
 
*Action Item: Leadership requests the Team to review the document to CIP-CCG Framework [docs.google.com] for the GNSO Council and provide input.
 
CCOICI Charter Update
Continue to review comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider
Need input from each SG/C as marked in the columns D~L
Column B is essentially an extract from the Pilot Charter, which was not in a standard charter format, blending the mission and objectives, as well as scope
 Does each mission, objectives, as well as scope need to be dissected in order to proceed with the newly proposed permanent charter? Also, is this appropriate and fit for purpose for the Permanent Standing Committee (SC) Charter?

 Other questions to consider: Should the CCOICI be "...overseeing the scoping and prioritization of project assignment...?" Should the CCOICI do the prioritization or the Council? What is the scope of "oversight?"

 To keep in mind: Members from the SC is all from the Council, if all present.

 Also, within the Pilot Charter, it seems like the participation of GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency (GNSO SG/Cs) Subject Matter Experts would also be responsible for overseeing the scoping and prioritization of project assignment, which needs clarity for the Support Staff to draft the future charter.

When reviewing past work and future cases, the above questions need answered.
Charter sections for the future charter: Mission, Membership, to Deliverables
Discussion Items:
Leadership: Regarding the subject matter expert statement within the mission and objectives, the leadership proposes it should be moved to the ‘membership’ section, if at all. Also, regarding "responsible for overseeing the scoping and prioritization of project assignment," the CCOICI will be responsible for prioritization when assignments arrive from Council, but the majority of scoping should happen within the Council. Related to “overseeing,” the one role CCOICI may play as an overseer is when it assigns tasks to Task Forces (TF), again maybe to be moved to ‘membership’ section.
RySG Rep.: 1) For scoping, was this done at the Council level or given to the specific standing committee? Support Staff responded that this will be reviewed/discussed through the use cases. 2) Subject matter expert: if only at TF, then we need a clearer sentence to answer the concerns.
*Action Item: Leadership requests the Team to review the comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider and provide input – Can be individual and not necessarily representing the SG/C’s feedback.

 
Review past and future use cases [docs.google.com]
Past and future work through use cases
Use cases derived from the Model Stress Tests [docs.google.com] spreadsheet but the scope is strictly within the GNSO Council (e.g., PDP), setting aside CIP/CIP-CCG
Not replicating the charter itself, but tried to condense what would be included within or affect the charter; Triggering Event (what initiated the work to begin); Events Leading Up to Formal Project; Scope of Work; Start date and Duration (important for prioritization – too much work or taking too long); Membership Model & Criteria (based on the request from the survey results); Leadership; Responsibilities (may not need); Deliverables; Questions to Consider for CCOICI
1) Use Case 1: Policy & Implementation Working Group

Triggering Event: 2012 gTLD Round and tasked Staff to prepare paper on policy vs. implementation
Duration: 2 years
Membership: Open model (prior to the representative model)
Leadership: 2 Chairs
Decision-making Methodologies: WG Guidelines
Deliverables: GIP, GGP, EPDP, CPIF, etc.
Questions to Consider for CCOICI: Would the Task Force be the only model to conduct this work, or remain as a non-PDP WG?
Discussion Items:
Question: If multiple TFs simultaneously occur, would it be too much work and insufficient volunteers/participation?  Something to consider when discussing the charter questions?
Question: Does the Council oversee implementation?
 No, technically, when GNSO adopts a final report intended to be implemented, then the ownership transfers to the Board, with Board to adopt which then is sent to ICANN org to proceed with the implementation process. IRT is a community mechanism that allows community input and guidance during the implementation process so that it is within the boundaries of the policy recommendations and the intent behind them. Only when there is a conflict or issues arise during the implementation process (e.g., between ICANN org and IRT), the Council Liaison gets involved.

Question: If the CCOICI decides this should be dealt with by a non-PDP WG instead of a TF, does that mean CCOICI doesn’t ‘own’ it anymore and no need to oversee?
 Maybe it is just the difference in the terminology? The more important question to consider here would be - Does it become an open model (old school) or a representative model is something to consider related to this.

                   2) Use Case 2: PDP 3.0
Triggering Event: GNSO Council SPS (Jan. 2018) checking on the PDPs
 Council to agree for Staff to build a report, upon several Council deliberations.

Scope of Work: 14 agreed improvements
Duration: Lasted just over a year
Membership/Decision-making Methodology: Small team of GNSO Councilors, 1 from each SG/C, and operating under full consensus
Strictly under the Council’s purview or should it have been a TF?
Discussion Items:
Question: Related to membership structure, how did it technically work (e.g., 1 from each SG/C, Was there a Chair?)
 Maybe Ex-Officio, thus 2 from 1 SG

                    3) CCOICI – TF Assignment #2 – WS2
Post CCOICI Pilot
Triggering Event: Specifically within the context of the GNSO Council and tasked to review and analyze the implementation of WS2 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability
Duration: Less than a year
Membership: 1 from each SG/C and NomCom (extracted from the CCOICI Pilot Charter itself)
Leadership: Chair acting as ex-officio
Deliverables: Council adoption of WS2 Assignment (Human Rights Impact Assessment it still outstanding, which is a more expansive community-wide effort)
Question to consider for CCOICI: There is a signal that that the CCOICI could take this work because the other assignment (WGSA) was completed.
Discussion Items:
Leadership: There was a task for the representatives to go back to each SG/C to find subject matter experts, but in reality, the experts were not utilized to the full potential (e.g., no task for them, unable to utilize their expertise, etc.) – need to consider the need in reality.
                    4) CCOICI –Assignment #4 – WGSA
Triggering Event: The PDP 3.0 first identified the opportunity to enhance WG self-assessment during a PDP and not only after conclusion.
Duration: Only 6 meetings then sent to GNSO Council for adoption.
Deliverables: The Staff followed-up with this for implementation (i.e., survey – will be sent to GNSO Council to sign off that it was implemented)
To consider for CCOICI: This should not be a TF effort that is open to the broader GNSO, rather than the GNSO Council
                    5) CCOICI – Assignment #6 - SOI
Triggering Event: Identified as work for the Pilot CCOICI as it was TF worthy
Duration: Work was for nearly 2 years  Task Force got launched that held 21 meetings
Deliverables: Did not get adopted
Membership: Contrary to the original requirements (e.g., appointing SG/Cs to appoint reps that have specific knowledge and experience with the SOIs), the Task Force ended up being small and had no Chair assigned (Staff ended up being de facto Chair)
 , and Members that are appointed to a Task Force are expected to serve for the duration of the effort and are expected to have relevant knowledge and or expertise in relation to the TF assignment

Decision-making Methodology: The aim was to work on Full consensus, but it failed, as there was no proper balance of the participants - True consensus needed a balanced membership
Questions to consider for CCOICI: Should it have been a SC model or a TF model and was it fit for purpose? When the TF concluded and its work was sent to CCOICI, what oversight did the SC actually do?
Discussion Items:
Question: Rep to go back to SG to find the subject matter expert, but in reality, the experts were not really utilized to the full potential (e.g., no task for them, unable to utilize their expertise, etc.)
                     6) Board Ready Recommendations
Triggering Event: This issue was deliberated at the GNSO Council’s SPS in Dec. 2023
 Staff paper on Board Readiness and Council Meeting presentation on Board Readiness from Kurt Pritz (July 2024)

Scope of Work: TBD
Duration: TBD
Membership: 4 members of SC signed up for a small team
Questions to consider for CCOICI: How would prioritization be handled if the CCOICI or Council if the SC were already a permanent?
Discussion Items:
Question: If small teams can be set up, without a charter, why would CCOICI be needed? (i.e., If the task is smaller and precise?)  Staff response was that the work cannot only continue with multiple small teams either.
Next Steps & AOB
Reminder: 1) Wednesday, 14 August Meeting will be an hour earlier (12:00 UTC) due to Community Outreach Board Meeting conflict; 2) Leadership requests the Team to review the comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider and provide input in the columns D~L.