The call will take place on Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/7xyexy7e
- Results of ranking of recs 1, 2.3 and 3 have been communicated to the CCG
- Status update provided to the GNSO Council
- Work plan status: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h38SgFeOdwumE7fUjLu4mB0CcXnwoncUpICqp_qINnk/edit#gid=0 [docs.google.com]
- Review status designations:
- Overview of status designations
- CCOICI feedback / questions
- Continue review of diversity recommendations (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zuQVN4zbz4zBYlZM4Mtfac7lj2j2dlna/edit#)
- Confirm next steps & next meeting (Wednesday 11 May at 12.00 UTC)
Apologies: Antonia Chu, Juan Manuel Rojas, Thomas Rickert
Notes/ Action Items
1. Review of diversity recommendations:
a. The CCOICI agrees that 1.2 Recommendation 2 is “Complete”.
b. The CCOICI agrees that 1.3 Recommendation 3, 1.4 Recommendation 4, 1.5 Recommendation 5, 1.6 Recommendation 6, 1.7 Recommendation 7, and 1.8 Recommendation 8 are “Not applicable for action”.
2. Staff will work with Olga and CCOICI members to find another day that week to move the meeting scheduled on 11 May.
a. Results of ranking of recs 1, 2.3 and 3 have been communicated to the CCG
b. Status update provided to the GNSO Council
- Should look familiar; shared at last meeting.
- Updated to reflect that the group finished its first assignment (the ranking) and started its diversity recommendation review.
- People can track the work of the CCOICI on the plan on the wiki, and it will also serve as a rolling agenda for upcoming meetings.
- Should move at a quicker pace once we know how many items we can cover in a meeting, as well as after addressing administrated items.
2. Review status designations:
a. Overview of status designations – See CCOICI WS2 Background Briefing - 25 March 2022 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zuQVN4zbz4zBYlZM4Mtfac7lj2j2dlna/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103865008760080873867&rtpof=true&sd=true.
Provided some definition to facilitate discussions.
• "Complete": Recommended action/decision is completed by the GNSO Council
• "Partially Complete": Recommended action/decision is partially completed by the GNSO Council, further implementation may or may not be within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council
• "Action/Decision Required": GNSO Council needs to make a decision on whether the recommended action/decision is applicable for action by the GNSO Council and assign an appropriate implementation status in this list
• "Not applicable for action": Recommended action/decision and its respective implementation is not within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council
• "Implementation Planned": GNSO Council is planning to implement the recommended action/decision
• "Implementation Ongoing": GNSO Council’s implementation on the recommended action/decision is ongoing
• "Won't be Implemented": Recommended action/decision is within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council, but GNSO Council chooses not to implement (this may apply to the non-mandatory recommendations)
b. CCOICI feedback / questions
- Olga and Constituency and Stakeholder groups can provide guidance/feedback on the designations to the CCG.
- CCOICI members should keep these handy as they complete their review.
- May need more details around the “Partially Complete” and “Action/Decision Required” designations. Need to better describe who needs to make the decision about the status.
- If it was academic there would be overlays between the designations, but this seems complete as is. Don’t think we need to spend more time on this.
- These designations and definitions should be more clear as we go through our review as we will see the practical use.
- Council will have the final say on the status.
- These are the designations that other groups have also been asked to use so that there is consistency in terminology, but of course, if there are updates / additions are necessary, we can take those back to our colleagues who are supporting the overall community coordination on WS2. This is to be clear where the recommendation stands with the different groups and easier to understand for others.
- For those items “Partially Complete” the CCOICI/Council should indicate what has been completed by the Council and what is to be implemented by other groups.
- CCOICI will use these designations and as guidance/adjust definitions if necessary.
3. Continue review of diversity recommendations (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/10wVZSfLAigSLoHFO87Lio7yEm73H7CXj/edit [docs.google.com])
1.2. Recommendation 2: Each SO/AC/Group should identify which elements of diversity are mandated in their charters or ICANN Bylaws and any other elements that are relevant and applicable to each of its levels including leadership (Diversity Criteria) and publish the results of the exercise on their official websites.
- Staff assessment is that this is complete. See Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article11.3.b : Clear diversity language and that the stakeholder groups have the responsibility.
Discussion: Does the CCOICI agree with the staff’s assessment?
- Agree with the staff assessment.
- Don’t know of any enforcement from the GNSO Council and don’t know that it’s desirable. Enough that it exists in the Bylaws.
ACTION ITEM: The CCOICI agrees that 1.2 Recommendation 2 is “Complete”.
1.3. Recommendation 3: Each SO/AC/Group, supported by ICANN staff, should undertake an initial assessment of their diversity for all of their structures including leadership based on their Diversity Criteria and publish the results on their official website.
- GNSO Council does not have this responsibility. Up to the SG/Cs to select their representative.
- Staff deems this “Not applicable for action”.
- Agree that it’s not applicable.
ACTION ITEM: The CCOICI agrees that 1.3 Recommendation 3 is “Not applicable for action”.
1.4. Recommendation 4: Each SO/AC/Group should use the information from their initial assessment to define and publish on their official website their Diversity Criteria objectives and strategies for achieving these, as well as a timeline for doing so.
1.5. Recommendation 5: Each SO/AC/Group, supported by ICANN staff, should undertake a regular update of their diversity assessment against their Diversity Criteria and objectives at all levels including leadership. Ideally this update should be carried out annually but not less than every three years. They should publish the results on their official website and use this information to review and update their objectives, strategies, and timelines.
- Would seem to apply to 1.4 and 1.5 too, that these are the responsibility of the SGs/Cs and not of the GNSO Council.
ACTION ITEM: The CCOICI agrees that 1.4 Recommendation 4 and 1.5 Recommendation 5 are “Not applicable for action”.
1.6. Recommendation 6: ICANN staff should provide support and tools for the SO/AC/Groups to assist them in assessing their diversity in an appropriate manner. ICANN should also identify staff or community resources that can assist SO/ACs or other components of the community with diversity-related activities and strategies.
1.7. Recommendation 7: ICANN staff should support SO/AC/Groups in developing and publishing a process for dealing with diversity-related complaints and issues.
1.8. Recommendation 8: ICANN staff should support the capture, analysis, and communication of diversity information, seeking external expertise if needed, in the following ways:
1.8.1. Create a Diversity section on the ICANN website.
1.8.2. Gather and maintain all relevant diversity information in one place.
1.8.3. Produce an Annual Diversity Report for ICANN based on all the annual information and provide a global analysis of trends and summarize SO/AC/Groups recommendations for improvement, where appropriate. This should also include some form of reporting on diversity complaints.
1.8.4. Include diversity information derived from the Annual Diversity Report in ICANN's Annual Report.
- In the logic that the previous recommendations 1.3 to 1.5 are not applicable for action for the Council and it's really up to each stakeholder groups and constituencies to undertake those assessment of diversity, then 1.6 is not applicable, either because that's basically to provide support and tools to conduct those assessment.
- Also the owner is basically ICANN staff. We believe it’s not for Council action, so it’s not applicable.
- And then the same logic applies to 1.7 and 1.8 because first it's a for each stakeholder group and constituency to conduct those assessments and then the owner of these actions are staff so they're not applicable to the GNSO Council.
- Staff will mark 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 as not applicable for Council.
ACTION ITEM: The CCOICI agrees that 1.6 Recommendation 6, 1.7 Recommendation 7, and 1.8 Recommendation are “Not applicable for action”.
Next item in the work plan is Recommendation 2 as follows:
Guidelines for Good Faith Conduct Recs 2.1.1, 2.1.2 [Petitions for Removal of Directors]
- Review staff assessment
- Discuss potential implementation of 2.1.2
- It is kind of preliminary on the standing of that because it's related to the empowered communities power and to one up the powers is for the decision of participants to remove the board directors, so this set of recommendations is related to those things, so probably not everybody's familiar with that and then may need some introduction.
- So do you want to stop now or do you want us to start with the introduction of these topics?
- If you could give us an introduction that could be good, but it’s up to the group.
- An introduction would be good.
- This topic can be a little bit complicated, but first let’s read the recommendations:
2. Recommendations for Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors
The proposed guidelines apply to all Board seats whether the Director is appointed by the SO/AC or the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) and are as follows:
2.1 Recommendations for guidelines with respect to Petitions for removal:
2.1.1 May for any reason; and
126.96.36.199 Be believed by the Indemnified Party to be true.
188.8.131.52 Be in writing.
184.108.40.206 Contain sufficient detail to verify facts; if verifiable facts are asserted. 220.127.116.11 Supply supporting evidence if available/applicable.
18.104.22.168 Include references to applicable by-laws and/or procedures if the assertion is that a specific by-law or procedure has been breached.
22.214.171.124 Be respectful and professional in tone.
- Not sure how to proceed with the introduction. Maybe I will stop here and ask members in this group, how many of you are familiar with the empowered Community powers, especially related to the board director removal power. Actually the general counsel developed those guidelines in 2019 it was a small Council team That was tasked to develop these guidelines related to the empowered Community powers and how for the general counsel to fulfill its obligation as a decisional participant in the empowered communities, so it was a pretty complicated process, but the work was done in 2019 and then there were counselors and even members from the broader GNSO Community that were participating in that effort.
- Maybe staff can prepare a better presentation for the next meeting to just give everybody kind of a refresher on that effort and based on your level of knowledge.
- Think it would be good to have that refresher.
- It will also be easier to explain the staff assessment.
4. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Wednesday 11 May at 12.00 UTC)
- Olga notes she has a conflict for the next meeting. Suggest perhaps selecting another day that week at the same time.
- Staff will send a Doodle.
ACTION ITEM: Staff will work with Olga and CCOICI members to find another day that week to move the meeting scheduled on 11 May.