Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1.    Olga to provide the CCOICI ranking of recommendations 1, 2.3, and 3 to the CSG – Ranking is 1, 3, and 2.3: Diversity, Framework for Interpretation of Human Rights, and Indemnity.
2.    1.1 Recommendation 1 – Status Assignment: “Not applicable for action” -- CCOICI members to review this status assigned during the call and to share on the list if they do not agree with that assignment.
3.    Olga to ask the CSG if or how they would like to receive input from the GNSO Council on the substance of the recommendations.
4.    PREVIOUS ACTION: Staff to consult internally with ICANN Org to provide an update on the status of the recommendation relating to OFAC and jurisdiction.

Notes:

1. Welcome

a. Update from first Work Stream 2 Community Coordination Group (WS2 CCG) meeting.

-    Olga is the GNSO Council Representative to the CCG.
-    Met on 05 April.
-    Highlights on mostly administrative items: 
o    Agreed that alternates and observers can participate.   
o    Not necessary to designate a chair at this time.  
o    Agreement on meeting times.  
o    Frequency of the calls is once a month initially.

2. Review of proposed order of work (see attached) 

-    1: Complete ranking of Recs 1 [Diversity], 2.3 [Indemnity Standalone Items], and 3 [Framework for interpretation of Human Rights] 
-    2-4: all relating to Diversity recommendations – important for the CCOICI to start with these as the CCG will be looking for input, which Olga and provide for the group.
-    Divided the diversity recommendations into three subgroups.
-    5-6: Guidelines for Good Faith Conduct – staff has conducted an assessment and implementation status.
-    7-11: SO/AC Accountability Recommendations – staff has already conducted an assessment and implementation status.
-    12: Most difficult item on the Human Rights Framework.  This one will take the longest time.
-    The work plan is a suggestion from staff.  
-    Still need to determine a timeline, but that can be done as we begin the work and see how long it takes – this can be a rolling agenda.
-    Question: Does this work plan have to be consistent with the CCG’s work? Answer: The CCG’s work is not identical to the GNSO’s, although the CCG is beginning with diversity and the CCG also requested the ranking, which the CCOICI has done (see below).  The CCG’s work may also inform the work of the CCOICI. Olga can help to keep the CCG appraised of what is happening in the CCOICI and update the CCOICI on the work of the CCG.
-    The Human Rights Framework is suggested to be the last item for the CCOICI because it is the most complicated and it also may take the CCG some time to get to it.
-    Question: Was the ranking the prioritization of the CCOICI’s work? Answer: The ranking is to be communicated to the CCG, but does not direct the work of the CCOICI.  It is input for the CCG’s work plan – the order for the CCG to undertake its work.

3. Ranking survey recs 1, 2.3 and 3

a. Review survey results

-    Based on the responses: The ranking is 1, 2.3, and 3 -- Diversity, Framework for Interpretation of Human Rights, Indemnity.
-    Reminder: This is the input for the CCG to organize its work plan and priority setting.  This is not a ranking for the CCOICI’s work plan.

b. CCOICI to confirm ranking

-    Ranking was not unanimous, but more than a majority; group can discuss whether it agrees with the ranking.
-    Seems that it is reasonable to put forward.
-    Agreement to provide the input to the CCG.

c. Confirm next steps

-    Completes the first assignment of the group.
-    Olga will communicate the ranking to the CCG; staff will assist.

ACTION ITEM: Olga to provide the CCOICI ranking of recommendations 1, 2.3, and 3 to the CSG – Ranking is 1, 3, and 2.3: Diversity, Framework for Interpretation of Human Rights, and Indemnity.

4. Commence review of diversity recommendations

-    Previous priority determination: This is something for the GNSO community to work on, but not the Council specifically.
-    CCOICI to review the previous priority determination and decide if it is still valid.
-    If the CCOICI decides it is applicable to the Council then it will need to make a determination on the implementation status. 

1.1. Recommendation 1: SO/AC/Groups should agree that the following seven key elements of diversity should be used as a common starting point for all diversity considerations within ICANN: [graphic] 1) Geographical / regional representation, 2) Language, 3) Gender, 4) Age, 5) Physical disability, 6) Diverse skills, 7) Stakeholder group or constituency. 

Questions:
-    Do you think Council has a determination to make on the key elements of diversity?  It this applicable for Council?  Doesn’t say anything about the importance of the recommendation.
-    This is really about assigning responsibility for these recommendations. If it is the Council, how should the Council do that?
-    Does the CCOICI agree that this is “not applicable for action” by the Council, which is the staff’s assessment suggested for this recommendation.  For reference, these are the status assignments:
o    "Complete" 
o    "Action/Decision Required"
o    "Partially Complete"
o    "Not applicable for action" 
o    "Implementation Planned" 
o    "Implementation Ongoing" 
o    "Implementation Completed" 
o    "Won't be Implemented"
-    The status assignments enable the actions to be tracked.

Discussion:
-    This is something that the community should understand.  But the work that ICANN does is very good.
-    Not sure it’s the GNSO’s role to define the key elements, but not sure that the order of the elements in correct.
-    Clarify that 1.1 is about defining diversity, but not about how it is being measured or promoted.  Just a list of elements and not in an order of ranking.  This group is not tasked with discussing the substance of the recommendations – that is for the CCG to discuss – although Olga can take any input back to the CCG.
-    It is not within the remit for this group to make changes to these recommendations as these have already been adopted by the ICANN Board.  It is about confirming the status of the recommendations from the perspective of the GNSO Council.
-    Olga should ask the CSG if or how they would like to receive inputs from the various groups.  If there is a value to capture input, it should go through Council.
-    CCOICI agrees with the staff’s assessment that the recommendation is “not applicable for action” by the Council.

ACTION ITEM: 1.1 Recommendation 1 – Status Assignment: “Not applicable for action” -- CCOICI members to review this status assigned during the call and to share on the list if they do not agree with that assignment.
ACTION ITEM: Olga to ask the CSG if or how they would like to receive input from the GNSO Council on the substance of the recommendations.

5. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Wednesday 27 April at 12.00 UTC)

 6. AOB -- Council agenda item relating to the WG Self-Assessment:

-    AOB on Council agenda: propose that the IGO WG to test run the new end-of-life survey with the updates made by the CCOICI.  Ask the WG for its experience with the survey. Purpose of the AOB is to ask the Council if there are any concerns about a test run of the survey.