2021-09-15 EPDP CCOICI - Meeting #02

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1. Council Committee members to review the attached project plan not later than 21 September, prior to next week’s meeting.  Subsequently, staff will share the project plan with the GNSO Council.
2. Staff to suggest text in each section of the Task Force assignment in the charter template at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GDL6IzcnChv_y-tvgs4oSKgqTEo5L8GV/edit [docs.google.com]; Council Committee members to review the document and add suggestions/comments.

Notes:

1. Welcome & Chair updates
2. Overview of proposed project plan & approach (see attached)

• Tried to map out at a high level the different steps that the group is expected to take and an anticipated timeframe.
• This is just an estimate and we can adjust as needed.
• If there are major update, especially with regards delivery of milestones, those are provided to the Council will reasons why they are not met.
• We’ve had our first meeting and are in the process of analyzing the charter (Task Force assignment form); we’ve aligned the completion of that document with the timing of the GNSO Council meetings – right now for the document deadline for the October meeting.
• We can finish the task earlier, or update if we need more time.
• First task is the Task Force that is looking at the Statements of Interest.
• Once the Task Force is formed it will create its own plan (2.52-2.55).  The steps in the current project plan are just illustrative.  Task Force work will be collapsed into one row.
• These task are sequential in the Smart Sheet tool – as dates change the changes will cascade.  This feeds into a larger tool (portfolio management tool).
• GNSO Council will need to approve the Task Force charter/assignment form.
• Second task is the Council Committee assignment of the review of the WG self-assessment.
• The second task will start after the Council Committee has completed the Task Force assignment form for Council approval.
• Other steps are for the Council to review this pilot and possibly addressing other tasks – set tentatively for April/May of 2022.
• Group members should review the project plan and indicate any suggested changes.
• We also should share it with the Council.

ACTION ITEM: Council Committee members to review the attached project plan not later than 21 September, prior to next week’s meeting.  Subsequently, staff will share the project plan with the GNSO Council.

   3. SOI Task Force Assignment Sheet (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GDL6IzcnChv_y-tvgs4oSKgqTEo5L8GV/edit [docs.google.com])

      a. Review input received

Assignment (short description): Short description of the TF assignment(s)

Question: Is this short description from the framework document sufficient? If not, what additional information should be provided? (Note, this may be a section that is best completed when the other parts of the template have been filled out?)

• It could be useful to  include the expected outcome of the Task Force´s effort. What is expected once the assignment is finished?
• As a reminder: What this document intended to become is the charter for the Task Force.
• What are the questions that the group needs to provide input on?  Could add language here.
• The more guidance the Council Committee can provide to the Task Force the more likely the TF will be successful.
• You may need to come back to this description after filling in the rest of the document.
• If enforcement of SOIs is part of the outcome, we might want to note it here.  Add “accountability” to this description to reflect this aspect of the work.
• Staff is working on efforts to enforce the requirement that SOIs are provided for any GNSO group.  Right now it is manual, but eventually it will be an automatic requirement for enrollment.

Background Information/Links: Background information and links to relevant documents to the TF assignment(s):

Question: What background information should be provided to the Task Force? Should the staff observations also be provided to the TF?

• There are two aspects: 1) having an SOI to participate; 2) that SOIs are accurate.  Include in the background the conversations around enforcement and accuracy when the form was developed.  Could explore tools that could help assure accuracy.  Might be premature to get that specific at this point, but at least include some text that the Task Force should suggest ways to improve the SOIs.
• All we seem to do now is have chairs ask if there are any changes to declare (which is not bad, just not enough).
• Need to ask why we are asking for an SOI – there is a different in purpose between an SOI for a WG and for leadership in an advisory group.  Maybe we can’t have a one-size-fits-all form across the community.
• Could include more guidance in the form.
• Focus on the specific questions that would need to be asked.  Example: what is the original purpose of the SOI? What are they use for? (SOIs are public information, we have to know what they're used for.) Are there different purposes for SOIs?  Provide guidance to the Task Force that there are other SOIs out there that could be affected by changes to the GNSO SOI.
• Worth raising the issue of enforcement, even if it may be out of scope for the SOI.
• One purpose is for transparency.  Important that whatever initiative we take it should be viewed in the existing rules of the GNSO and the Bylaws.
• In this section, adding staff observations could be  useful. Adding other observations apart from the staff ones?

Assignment Questions to be addressed by the Task Force: What questions is the TF expected to address in order to complete its assignment? Sample questions could include:

Questions:

1) Is the original objective of the SOI still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? 

2) Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? 

3) Based on the responses to question 1) and 2), what updates, if any, would need to be made to the GNSO Operating Procedures? 

As part of its deliberations, the TF should also consider how the SOI is used across the GNSO as well as outside of the GNSO as proposed changes could have a broader impact. The TF could also consider whether there is value in having different types of SOIs, for example, one that is specific to policy development, and others that may serve other purposes. 

• We could fine tune these questions or have sub-questions. One thing to potentially add is for the group to look at previous conversations on this topic, such as whether SOIs are used in other contexts.  How do other organizations do this?  Maybe there is nothing that is comparable, but might be useful to provide some guidance.
• One of the purposes of the SOI is surely to ensure that there is truly multistakeholder representation.  In the case of large/dominant companies, it is possible to have a PDP with reps of the same company appearing in a variety of ICANN groups, resulting in over-representation of one organization.  Unfortunately, customer relationships are also important in those relationship situations, and that is a tough nut to crack.

Membership Composition: Detail membership composition (see default in section 3). Provide rationale if changes are made to default composition.

Question: Is the default composition as outlined in the framework document (see above) sufficient? If not, why not and how should it be changed for this TF?

• Up to the Council Committee whether it wants to use the default language and, if not, to provide a rationale.
• There should be a minimum – that each group is represented with one person.
• Possible to have subject matter experts join the Task Force (such as the people who drafted the original SOI).
• Questions are: 1) whether the composition is sufficient for this purpose; 2) what is the minimum (one rep per SG/C?); 3) is there a need to reach out to other groups either through public comment or early engagement?  Specifically if other groups are using the SOI in its current form or others.
• The composition as proposed here is a representative manner.

Decision making methodology: Detail decision making methodology (see default in section 3). Provide rationale if changes are made to default composition.

Question: Is the default decision making methodology as outlined in the framework document (see above) sufficient? If not, why not and how should it be changed for this TF?

Timeline: Indicate expected timing of completion of assignment.

Questions: What is a reasonable timeframe in which the TF is expected to complete its assignment and answer the assignment questions? Please factor in that proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures require public comment. Also, the assignment indicates that as part of its efforts the TF “should include soliciting input from the community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements”.

Consultation Expectations: Indicate if consultations and/or public comment is expected to be conducted by TF.

Questions: In addition to solicitation of input from the community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements, what other consultations and/or public comment should the TF plan for?

     b. Confirm next steps

• Staff can suggest some text in each section for the Council Committee members to review.
• Council Committee members are welcome to include their comments in the Google doc.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to suggest text in each section of the Task Force assignment; Council Committee members to review the document and add suggestions/comments.

   4. Confirm next meeting (Wednesday 22 September 2021 at 13.00 UTC) 

• Attendance appears to be low; Secretariat staff can contact those members who did not attend but who didn’t provide apologies.
• We are making good progress with a weekly call.  Good to stick to this time slot.
• Agreed to meet next week at the same time.