[GNSO-CCOICI] Council Committee liaison to the GNSO SOI Task Force

Wed Feb 9 13:00:50 UTC 2022

Dear colleagues,

I trust this email finds you well.

Up to now, no one has stepped forward for the role of *Council Committee
liaison to the GNSO SOI Task Force.*

So I am willing to take this role.

If you have any objections or comments please let me know.

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/20220209/63d84c98/attachment-0001.html>