2024-09-11 CCOICI - Meeting #50

Notes/ Action Items

 [Action Items]

1. Support Staff to reflect the suggestions discussed in the Meeting to the draft of charter [docs.google.com]
2. Leadership requests the Team to review the draft of charter [docs.google.com] and provide input (in redlines and/or comments) by next Team meeting.

[Notes]

1. Welcome and SOI Updates

• N/A

1. Announcements, Work plan and upcoming meeting schedule

• Work Plan is to complete the draft charter for GNSO Council’s consideration at ICANN81 in Istanbul, Turkiye; Report to the GNSO Council will be on the 17 October; Planning to meet every week in September
• If no invitations for September, please let Support Staff know.
• Susan Payne will be replaced by Damon Ashcraft as the IPC representative; Welcome Damon, also befitting as the GNSO representative to CIP-CCG, but Susan will be greatly missed.

1. Continue CCOICI Charter Review: draft of charter [docs.google.com] & tool [docs.google.com]

• Review of Comments:

• “PDP” context (p.2): There was a comment to change PDP to a general policy development process as this may refer to all processes; The intent behind the use of a formal “PDP” is as CCOICI/TF will be working on future PDPs that impact GNSO activities (e.g., PDP 4.0, Status Report, etc.). Also emphasizing that this group is not doing consensus policy development but more doing improvement work for the PDP.

• Suggestion: It will be more helpful if there can be a footnote for that explanation or directing the readers to the list of tasks (which is below in p.3 of the charter) – To add a footnote to PDP guidelines and bylaws as well as list below.

• Backlog (the placeholder referred to in p.2): The list is from the pilot charter, which was very prescriptive, and does not seem necessary in the permanent charter; A pointer to the informal list will be updated in the future and the priority of tasks to be determined accordingly.
• “considered” (p.3): Comment to be more specific, on approved vs. not approved, but to consider if additional work is necessary if not approved? For now, some Team members have agreed to “considered” being OK.
• “agreements” (p.3): Change to “consensus” [DONE]
• Membership Structure:

• The model rationale explained through the model stress test again. See here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l4cxTA9RF7VyDyObP294xiXo7ybE2qwUqpH7HWBG7No/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

• Pilot CCOICI (Column F): Council structure is not fit for purpose for the permanent structure due to high workload demands and may not be able to work numerous TFs in parallel; Need to reach out to the broader GNSO. Thus, resourcing is the huge aspect behind the proposed membership structure.
• Future CCOICI and TF (Columns J-F): Derived from the pilot charter, but expanding the members out to the broader GNSO. Observers exist so that the discussion items/contents are followed by each SG/C, in case they are not brought back to the SG/Cs.
• Vice-Chairs: Part of the leadership team

• Discussion Items:

• Question: Does the number of members, e.g., prescribing 1 member from CSG, make sense to the Team?
• Question: Are there too many participants (20 members+12 observers), if only 50-60% participating; is it counterproductive ultimately? 20 participants filling them with observers seem too eager and the meetings may mostly be vacant. How many typically attend these calls? 74% attendance rate (6-8/9 members)

 Observer role is just to be informed rather than participating as members.

 Suggestion: A footnote can be added to “One Chair from each SG/C” category under the 12 Observers, that they may/may not need to participate as active member.

 Maybe Observers can just be “Email Only”? (FYI. In GNSO, anyone can participate as a guest and be on the mailing list without the ability to actively participate)

• Request: To mark the number of members/observers for each category
• Question: Would the board members not be better off as “liaisons” instead of a more vague observer? Team support received and noted in the side bar comments.
• NCA: Maybe only 1 needed?

*Action Item: Support Staff to reflect the suggestions discussed in the Meeting to thedraft of charter [docs.google.com]

1. Next Steps & AOB

• Please provide comments if any questions or unclear about an item.
• If language to be changed within the draft, redline is OK as long as the Team provides it in “suggestion” mode.

                *Action Item: Leadership requests the Team to review the draft of charter [docs.google.com] and provide input.