2024-09-18 CCOICI - Meeting #51

Notes/ Action Items

[Action Items]

1. Support Staff to check if the CCOICI membership structure and Board’s potential role can be added as an AOB during the Informal Joint Meeting with GNSO Appointed Board members and GNSO Council (planned for next week: 25 Sep.).
2. Leadership to circulate the proposal on the NCA issue (how many NCAs are needed in the membership) via the mailing list for Team discussions
3. Leadership requests the Team to review the draft of charter [docs.google.com] and provide input as well as any indicator of support/objections to move forward with discussions.

[Notes] ccc

1.Welcome and SOI Updates

• Happy Fall Festival (Harvest Moon) from Asia!

2. Announcements, Work plan and upcoming meeting schedule

• September meeting continues and October meeting invitation will be sent out next week.
• Reminder that a full draft of the charter should be completed to submit and report to GNSO Council for discussion by ICANN81 in Istanbul (November)

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

1. Section III Membership Structure and Criteria

• CCOICI Membership Structure (p.4)
  • 20 members, 2 liaisons, 10 observers
    • Discussion Items:

 Concerns on too many NCAs for CCOICI

 Concerns on too much quantity (raised by an IPC member last week): The rationale from staff after model test is 1) Need resources to do the work; 2) Need a balanced structure of the SC and TF, as they are operating under a consensus model.

 Another concern raised by another IPC member (2-3 weeks ago) related to the rigidity of the membership structure where there is only 1 Councilor from each SG (e.g., 1 member from CSG which has 3 Constituencies)

• Liaisons (TBD) vs. Observers: Current draft includes 2 Board members as liaisons – Need the Team to determine the distinction. Observers are not active participants but strictly present to be informed and should be aware of the activities (No consensus calls, not present at meetings, but just informed). However, liaisons are more active (2-way communication) than observers (passive).
  • Qu) Chair: If this were to proceed, noting that there is an Informal Joint Meeting with GNSO Appointed Board members and GNSO Council planned for next week (25 Sep.), can we add an agenda item where the CCOICI membership structure and Board’s potential role can be presented?
• Representation should be addressed related to the number of Councilors on the committee (over representation vs. insufficient representation)
• Either way, work demands need to decrease to match the lack of resources OR the SC/C need to fill the amount of work.

 1 support from a Team member (NCA) that the current membership structure in the draft charter looks well-balanced [20 members (14 SG/C + 4 Council members from each SG/C + 2 NCA) + 10 observers + 2 liaisons]

1. Option 1: 14 SG/C members act as the main resource rather than the 4 additional Councilors (thus, delete the 4?);
2. Option 2: the 4 Councilors move down from “members” to “observers”;
3. Option 3: 14 SG/C members + 5 Councilors (without representation of a group and getting rid of NCA and only when the 14 seats from a group is difficult to fill)

 2 NCAs on a committee is novel and somewhat awkward, but for representation and balance, support 2 over 1.

 This option with the 5 councilors may be pushing the decision down the road, resulting in a similar problem.

 Qu) As for the random selection of 5 Councilors, how do you prevent the lack of/over representation of a specific SG/C? Also. what is the role of the Councilor in this scenario related to representation and the process as well as designation level? Answered above related to the 5 Councilors, but in addition, the representation/volume of participants (e.g., 1 CSG) can be resolved if each SG act as a unified voice and each group selects which one that unified voice should be – something to confirm when IPC member who raised this is present and provides feedback/input.    

1. Other options: 1 - Councilors not being a part of the consensus calls; 2 - NCA remove all together; 3 - NCA limited to observers

• NCA role: 1) Inform Councilors; 2) Attached to each House; 3) Extra resources – Need to consider the work and resources ahead.
• Leadership proposal: 1) 1 NCA is chosen from the 3; 2) 2 NCAs as members and 1 NCA as observer (Current Draft); 3) 3 NCAs as members
• Note: Compare to TF membership structure where it may help as a bail out mechanism.
• Question for the Team: Moving forward, 1) should the NCA issue be resolved via the mailing list OR 2) come back to this portion later after the whole charter is reviewed.
• Note: If general agreement with the structure, the Team can be advised that we can move on as there is an opportunity to amend the charter in the future.
• Also, please feel free to make a comment that you approve of a section or text. Any indicator of support or non-support will help at this point.

*Action Item: 1) Support Staff to check if the CCOICI membership structure and Board’s potential role can be added as an AOB during the Informal Joint Meeting with GNSO Appointed Board members and GNSO Council (planned for next week: 25 Sep.); 2) Leadership to circulate the proposal on the NCA issue (how many NCAs are needed in the membership) via the mailing list for Team discussions; 3) Leadership requests the Team to review the draft of charter [docs.google.com] and provide input.

4.Next Steps & AOB

• Please feel free to make a comment in the draft charter for discussions and/or that you approve of a section or text. Any indicator of support or non-support will help at this point to move forward as well.

*Action Item: Leadership requests the Team to review the draft of charter [docs.google.com] and provide input and/or any indicator of support/objections to move on with discussions.