2024-09-25 CCOICI - Meeting #52

Notes/ Action Items

[Action Items]

1. Leadership to circulate the email from Chris with the Team to review the CIP-CCG Framework together.
2. Support Staff encourages the CCOICI members to consult with representatives of CCG on the CIP Framework.
3. With the draft charter deliberations coming to a close, CCOICI Members to reach out to respective SG/Cs to discuss the charter progress and details related to the membership structure as well as issues related to the CIP-CCG Framework.

[Notes]

1. Welcome and SOI Updates

• Chair would like to end 10 mins earlier due to an early informal Board meeting.

     2. Announcements, Work plan and upcoming meeting schedule

• Next week (2 Oct): No meeting scheduled - Today’s meeting will determine if another call needs to be scheduled.
• Report of the draft charter to GNSO Council will be in October (17 October), to be adopted by ICANN81 in Istanbul (November).
• CIP-CCG update in relation to the report to the GNSO Council:
  • CIP Assessment period will start beginning of next year (for 3 years - Jan.2025~Dec.2027); Encouraging CCOICI members to consult with representatives on CCG on the CIP Framework (Public comment in November); Reach out to CIP-CCG reps for the draft that is related to the assessment periods, which will go out for Public Comment.

 Criteria and indicators are laid out for assessment; areas to improve where some work is initiated and/or worked on through the second year. The third year will be the conclusion of the 3-year assessment period, where the SO and ACs will report on the overall progress and assessment of continuous program (Public Comment anticipated). This report will be delivered to the Pilot Holistic Review.

• What Gnso, at large, is missing is, what are the criteria and indicators by which the GNSO as a supporting organization would assess itself?

 This means that work still needs to be done, either between now and the end of the year, or the early part of next year, when this standing committee becomes formalized. This group will be the primary vehicle to drive the assessment.

• Update from Meeting with Chris Disspain (RySG): Reviewed the criteria under the principles of CIP-CCG framework, but unlike anticipated, found out that only the Framework will be put out for Public Comment (including 5 principles)

 Manju will circulate the email from Chris with the Team to review the Framework together for GNSO to operate – overall SG/C improvement is important, but the overall GNSO improvement is also important.

 Individual SG/C’s affirmation on the principles will be requested in relation to the principles where Manju and Damon will report to the GNSO Council. Subsequently, CCOICI will be in charge of continuous improvement and whether the principles work. After the Public Comment, CCOICI will proceed under these principles.

*Action Item:

1) Leadership to circulate the email from Chris with the Team to review the CIP-CCG Framework together;

2) Support Staff encouraging CCOICI members to consult with representatives of CCG on the CIP Framework.

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

1. Section III Membership Structure and Criteria (p.4)

• Leadership thanks those members who have shared views on the NCA participation but understands that there was not enough time to digest the issue.
• Continue discussions on concerns for 1 Council member per SG (e.g., 1 from CSG):

 In general, 1 Council Member from CSG is OK.

• IPC member expressed general concern on the number/size of the group (20 active members will be difficult). Composition sounds good.
• BC member was generally OK with the size of the group (not the critical factor), as long as there is at least 1 Council Member from each group active to balance the representation. The most important aspect is to represent the community related to the SG/C reps that are participating.
• CCOICI needs to be the oversight, but the Council will initiate the work and make actions on the work. Either way, CCOICI will be very busy. Options are to either fill the resources at the CCOICI level OR create various TFs along the way. (e.g., CIP assessment period to consider as well as the Board readiness project, SOIs, Policy Implementation WG, GNSO SPS follow-up, etc.)
• RySG member suggested that a SC should not be too big but agile enough to do the work. Additional resourcing should be done by TFs. Either way, happy to move on.      

 Conclusion: 20 members + 2 Liaisons + 10 Observers (following the current draft within the charter); Liaisons are more than a passive observer, whereas Observers will have no active participation but will be on mailing list only. See Guidelines on ‘Board Member as a Liaison to a Community Group’ here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-liaison-guidelines-31may21-en.pdf

              b. Section III Leadership Structure and Criteria

• For the Pilot, Council leadership was active in the beginning. The intent of the current proposal (2 Vice-Chairs from each House of the Council leadership – Council Vice-Chairs) was to balance out the representation but also to support the Chair in the heavy duties that lie ahead.
• RySG member suggested that there should be a Vice-Chair and if this were to be the Council Vice-Chair, that it may be too burdensome. This role needs to be clearly defined.
• BC member suggested that the leadership structure is limited to 1 Chair and 1 Vice-Chair, balancing them from each House. (i.e., If the Chair is from CPH, the Vice-Chair is from NCPH, or vice versa.)
• Chair appreciates 2 Vice-Chairs if no objections, but an additional suggestion was raised for only 2 within the leadership team.

 Conclusion: 1 Chair + 1 Vice-Chair, both from opposing Houses.

            c. Section III Task Forces Membership Structure and Criteria

• Task Forces are usually an overflowing mechanism if/when overcapacity; When TF is composed, a charter of its own will be drafted, but the purpose is not to rehash the membership structure/criteria again but to move from what is determined within the permanent charter to the new TF charter.
• Chair: The current draft related to CSG, should they be determined as each C rather than SG?

 ISP member agreed to CSG as is within the membership structure.

 ISP and BC member to take back to each group.

• Qu) BC member compared the GNSO Council small teams to the TF criteria

 TF is ideally another group of people like the PDP WGs, unlike the small team where the members are from the Council members themselves.

 Subgroups to focus on a specific task can occur from any committee level, but again, different to WGs/TFs.

 The CCOICI leadership will provide an assessment to the Council on what the best path should be. The SC or a TF. Council decides.

• Membership Structure was the most difficult issue to tackle, but as this has been addressed and no further comments remain within the draft charter, we can clean up the charter.

     4. Next Steps & AOB

• CCOICI Members to reach out to respective groups and raise any concerns over the mailing list.
• If there is a need to hold another meeting before the October Council Meeting (17 October), a schedule will be sent out to the Team.                    

*Action Item: CCOICI Members to reach out to each respective SG/Cs to discuss the charter and CIP-CCG Framework.