[GNSO-CCOICI] Action Items and Notes: CCOICI Meeting 15 Dec at 13:00 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear members of the CCOICI,

Please see below the action items and brief notes for the meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 15 December at 13.00 UTC.  Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JYMZCg.

The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday, 12 January 2022 at 13.00 UTC.

Kind regards,
Marika & Julie

Action Items:

1. Working Group Self-Assessment and PDP 3.0 WG leadership survey questions:
ACTION ITEMS: Staff will produce for CCOICI members to review:

  1.  A revised version of the end-of-life-survey as well as what the periodic survey will cover, based on comments received thus far.
  2.  Potential suggested revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures if necessary.
  3.  Potential suggested revisions to the WG charter template.

2. Meetings Calendar:
ACTION ITEMS:

  1.  Staff to cancel the meeting on 22 December and confirm that there is no meeting on 29 December.
  2.  Staff to send calendar invites for bi-weekly meetings in January 2022 to begin on 12 January.

Notes:

1. Welcome

2. Working Group Self-Assessment – Test WG Self-Assessment Survey (see https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!uKHHkgevH8mpOOCYECm1QxgPyyxZ6NZghOAqCy_9vfkkUCxnQ4H8VJGwQUq0wfYk9uyNtNDX9g$>)

a. Review additional CCOIC input received (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit__;!!PtGJab4!uKHHkgevH8mpOOCYECm1QxgPyyxZ6NZghOAqCy_9vfkkUCxnQ4H8VJGwQUq0wfYk9uzEE-EbrA$>)


  *   Comments about the survey tool and inability to indicate NomCom affiliation.
  *   Must be compatible with top 3 browsers.
  *   Ensure links are clickable.
  *   Have a status bar.
  *   Ask if WG members think the mission/charter is clear – maybe too late for the end-cycle survey?  This could be kept in the periodic survey.  Still might be helpful to also keep in the end-of-life-cycle survey.
  *   Questions regarding technical, external, and administrative support should not be asked at the end of the WG cycle. More helpful for the WG members to flag that during the process.   This would be helpful in the periodic survey.
  *   Perhaps some questions about working climate should be taken off or made in another way.  Think that we can add some questions about the relationships between constituencies/stakeholder groups inside the WG and how that affects the dynamics of the WG being able to accomplish its work.  For the next iteration we can propose some draft questions to that point.
  *   Some questions about involvement inside the WG job are missing, just to better know about the level of member engagement.
  *   Question: Would a GNSO liaison to a PDP WG be asked/ expected to fill in such a survey? Answer: Currently the liaison is not prohibited from completing the survey, nor specifically encouraged.  From a liaison point of view, they are still members of the WG so they should be able to answer the survey – although might be helpful to be identified.   Might be helpful to return to this question in the context of the periodic survey – perhaps the liaison would serve a different role?
  *   Allowing for an anonymous entry of survey responses is a must.  We discussed this in relation to the question of who should have access to the identifying information.  If it is completely anonymous then we can’t determine if the respondent is a WG member.  This is a theme that we need to return to in future calls and also in relation to questions about leadership surveys.
  *   Think that in order to confirm the respondent is part of the WG you can provide them with a unique link for only WG members.  We do want to encourage WG members to be forthcoming in their responses.
  *   In addition to the more substantive conversation about the survey questions, we also have requirements for the survey tool – staff will need to evaluate whether the current tool meets those requirements.
  *   Suggest that leadership should review the results of the survey with ICANN staff and the Ombudsman.  Staff observation, based on the Ombudsman’s current role not sure if that fits into that role.  Usually only engaged in cases of conflict.  This group will need to determine who receives and reviews the results, and whether this is a role for the Ombudsman.

b. Consider next steps


  *   Staff will take the input and produce a revised version of the end-of-life-survey as well as what the periodic survey will cover, based on comments received thus far.
  *   WG members will have the opportunity to provide further comments.

ACTION ITEMS: Staff will produce for CCOICI members to review:

  1.  A revised version of the end-of-life-survey as well as what the periodic survey will cover, based on comments received thus far.
  2.  Potential suggested revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures if necessary.
  3.  Potential suggested revisions to the WG charter template.

3. PDP 3.0 developed WG leadership survey questions (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-13-wg-member-survey-leadership-performance-10feb20-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-13-wg-member-survey-leadership-performance-10feb20-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!uKHHkgevH8mpOOCYECm1QxgPyyxZ6NZghOAqCy_9vfkkUCxnQ4H8VJGwQUq0wfYk9uzAGVtMiA$>)

a. Review CCOICI input (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit__;!!PtGJab4!uKHHkgevH8mpOOCYECm1QxgPyyxZ6NZghOAqCy_9vfkkUCxnQ4H8VJGwQUq0wfYk9uzEE-EbrA$>)

Q: Should this survey be integrated in the periodic survey or be a standalone survey?  Responses: General agreement.

Q: Should all questions be part of the periodic survey (or standalone)? Responses: General agreement.

Q: Are there any questions missing? Response: Add a question about equity from each constituency and stakeholder groups.

b. Confirm next steps

ACTION ITEMS: Staff will produce for CCOICI members to review:

  1.  A revised version of the end-of-life-survey as well as what the periodic survey will cover, based on comments received thus far.
  2.  Potential suggested revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures if necessary.
  3.  Potential suggested revisions to the WG charter template.

4. Confirm action items & next meeting:


  *   Staff will need time to produce drafts with a goal to share in early January 2022.  Drafts will not be ready next week.
  *   ICANN’s offices are closed between Christmas and New Year’s.
  *   Next likely meeting would be the first or second week of January.
  *   Would be helpful if we could agree on a calendar, such as whether to meet weekly or bi-weekly (every other week).
  *   We have been running on a weekly schedule but have had to cancel meetings.
  *   Suggest the next meeting to be on 12 January with bi-weekly meetings to follow, with staff to provide documents to review a week prior.

ACTION ITEMS:

  1.  Staff to cancel the meeting on 22 December and confirm that there is no meeting on 29 December.
  2.  Staff to send calendar invites for bi-weekly meetings in January 2022 to begin on 12 January.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/attachments/20211215/89c13b0c/attachment-0001.html>