[GNSO-CCOICI] For your review - updates made to reflect today's discussion

Wed Feb 2 15:27:47 UTC 2022

Dear colleagues,

I trust this email finds you well.

Many thanks Marika for the reminder! Please take a moment to review the
document by this Friday. In the case you are ok with it and no changes are
suggested, please let us know.

Also the GNSO Statement of Interest Task Force needs a liaison to the
council :)

Talk to you next week! Stay safe and best regards
Olga

El mié, 2 feb 2022 a las 11:56, Marika Konings (<marika.konings at icann.org>)
escribió:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> This is a reminder to review the latest version of the document *by
> Friday 4 February at the latest*.
>
>
>
> Also, if you are interested to serve as the Committee liaison to the
> Statement of Interest Task Force, please share your interest with the list
> as soon as possible. The first meeting of the group is scheduled for Monday
> 7 February at 13.00 UTC (see https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg for
> further information).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika
> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 16:25
> *To: *"gnso-ccoici at icann.org" <gnso-ccoici at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[GNSO-CCOICI] For your review - updates made to reflect
> today's discussion
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please note that the staff support team has included a number of edits in
> the document to reflect today’s discussion regarding confidentiality of
> responses (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BIYQNao380XIWSG357Cq6Fw6dfFkn71T/edit
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1BIYQNao380XIWSG357Cq6Fw6dfFkn71T/edit__;!!PtGJab4!uM0Oh8yLpGSHBmXie0n0rdKLAXTNqZz8xxRfIxOBtt3eeNXdjY8vnKf6_IuhljCAu06cpAnNkQ$>).
> You can find these edits on pages 4, 5, 11, 12 and 16 (edits marked as made
> by Emily Barabas and Marika Konings). Please note that with regards to the
> references to information that is included in the summary report and how it
> is distributed, this reflects current practice. If the group wants to
> suggest changes to the current practice, please note so in your comments.
>
>
>
> Please review these revisions and provide any you input you may have on
> these revisions as well as any other sections of the document *by Friday
> 4 February at the latest.* Based on the input received, we’ll confirm
> whether the meeting on 9 February is necessary or not.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Emily, Julie and Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 14:56
> *To: *"gnso-ccoici at icann.org" <gnso-ccoici at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[GNSO-CCOICI] Action Items and Notes: CCOICI Meeting 26 Jan
> 2022 at 13:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear members of the CCOICI,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and brief notes for the meeting of the
> Committee on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 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, 09 February 2022 at
> 13.00 UTC.*
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marika & Julie
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
>    1. *Staff to produce a revised version of the Working Group
>    Self-Assessment to clarify points relating to the confidentiality of
>    personal data.*
>    2. *Committee members to review the revised Working Group
>    Self-Assessment prior to the meeting on 09 February.*
>    3. *Staff to ask for volunteers for the role of the Council Committee
>    liaison to the GNSO SOI Task Force.*
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1.  Welcome
>
>
>
> a. Appointment of Council Committee liaison to GNSO SOI Task Force
>
>
>
>    - We finished our work with the review of the assignment of the work
>    to the Statement of Interest Task Force.
>    - The Task Force is now formed and ready to begin work.
>    - The Task Force will need a liaison from the Council Committee.
>    - This is not a liaison in the tradition sense, as in from the GNSO
>    Council to another group.
>    - This is a liaison from the Council Committee (CCOICI), which has
>    oversight of the Task Force.  The liaison has the direct linkage to the
>    Committee in case there are questions or concerns, and to provide updates
>    on the progress of the Task Force to the Committee.
>    - The liaison should be in place when the first Task Force meeting is
>    scheduled.
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM:* *Staff to ask for volunteers for the role of the Council
> Committee liaison to the GNSO SOI Task Force.*
>
>
>
> 2.  Working Group Self-Assessment – proposed updates and additions to
> relevant WGSA documents (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BIYQNao380XIWSG357Cq6Fw6dfFkn71T/edit
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1BIYQNao380XIWSG357Cq6Fw6dfFkn71T/edit__;!!PtGJab4!rBz5aM2FVzOc1HM7YvKpPdziAgy8KAJtogiI918VcEr0jvOu_49rKEvJB5Cbz_-DGsDXvqDyLA$>
> )
>
>
>
> a.    Review input received from CCOICI members
>
>
>
>    - Only comments from Flip and Desiree.  The comments from Desiree on
>    the issue of technical requirements relating confidentiality of personal
>    data.  Flip had an editorial suggestion.
>    - We will need to address the issue of confidentiality of responses.
>    - Asking whether members need more time to review, or whether the
>    document is fine in its current version.  There was general agreement that
>    the document did not require further review, but we will allow 1 more week
>    for those who have missed today’s meeting.
>
>
>
> b.    Address outstanding questions:
>
>
>
>    - Confidentiality of responses – what is the expectation from
>    respondents as well as those reviewing the responses?
>       - Will need to update the document based on the Committee’s
>       determination.
>       - Currently WG members get a general link and they provide their
>       names when completing the survey, but only staff see the names.  The
>       results are anonymized.  Summary report is distributed and published.
>       - Questions: Should we continue in the same manner?  The same for
>       both the mid-cycle survey and the end-of-cycle survey?  Who should see the
>       raw data?  What are the expectations of responses and reviewers?
>       - Could we use technology to anonymize responses – that is, to
>       provide a unique URL to each respondent?  This would eliminate the ability
>       for anyone to see the personal data of respondents.
>       - Not sure whether this is possible in the survey tool.
>       - Could suggest language emphasizing that access to personal data
>       should be restricted and technological solutions should be considered.
>       - We would still want to ask for affiliation so we understand the
>       balance of the responses over the participating groups.
>       - The current language makes it clear what data is collected and
>       what is done with that data.
>       - Could get better feedback if responses are anonymous.
>       - Some people may want to provide their names, which is possible.
>       Could be an optional field, or provided in comments.  But then depending on
>       the size of the group one may be able to determine who are the other
>       respondents.
>       - Currently we do not publish the names of respondents.
>       - Is the intent that ICANN Org staff will not see the personal
>       identification?  Or just that it not be published?
>       - Should be as specific as possible with our requirements for
>       confidentiality since ICANN is currently evaluating tools.
>
>
>
>    - Public comment – proposal to bundle with possible changes that
>    result from GNSO SOI TF
>       - Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures have to be put out for
>       public comment before taking effect.  Consider the timing for this step.
>       - There is also the work of the SOI Task Force, which may result in
>       changes.  Consider whether to wait and put all changes out for public
>       comment, depending on the timing of the work of the Task Force.
>       - If we hold for later publication, suggest that the Committee
>       shares the document with the Council along with an update.
>       - Question: Do we have any idea how long the work of the Task Force
>       will take?  Answer: In the assignment form the timeframe was 6-9 months.
>       It is a small and focused group with a focused topic so this seems
>       reasonable.  There will be outreach to other groups, but that is considered
>       in the timeframe estimate.
>       - The Task Force also could decide that no changes are needed to
>       the Operational Procedures.
>       - The Task Force also is expected to develop a work plan with
>       milestones to share with the Committee.   If the work looks like it will
>       take too long to complete the Committee could decide to go forward with the
>       public comment.
>       - The responses from the public comment will be reviewed by the
>       Task Force for the SOI and by the Committee for the WG self-assessment.
>
>
>
> c.     Confirm next steps
>
>
>
>    - Proposed next step: Staff will provide revised text based on this
>       discussion to make clear that providing names is optional and to consider
>       tools allow for the provision of a unique ULR.
>       - Once the revised document is finalized, Olga can provide it with
>       an update to the GNSO Council while noting that it will still go out for
>       public comment, and explaining issues of timing relating to possible
>       changes arising from the work of the SOI Task Force.
>       - The Committee will review the responses received from the public
>       comment.
>       - There are currently no further assignments for the Committee, but
>       the GNSO Council could determine further activities.
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEMS: *
>
>    1. *Staff to produce a revised version of the Working Group
>    Self-Assessment to clarify points relating to the confidentiality of
>    personal data.*
>    2. *Committee members to review the revised Working Group
>    Self-Assessment prior to the meeting on 09 February.*
>
>
>
> 3.  Confirm action items & next meeting (Wednesday 9 February at 13.00 UTC)
>
>
>
>    - The meeting on 09 February will be scheduled, but if there are no
>    further comments on the Working Group Self-Assessment the meeting could be
>    canceled.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-CCOICI mailing list
> GNSO-CCOICI at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ccoici
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/attachments/20220202/929b7cb2/attachment-0001.html>