[GNSO-CCOICI] Actions & Notes | CCOICI meeting on Wednesday 20 December at 12:00 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see the following actions and notes for the CCOICI meeting on Wednesday, 20 December at 12:00 UTC:

Best regards,
Julie


Acton Items – DUE COB THURSDAY, 21 DECEMBER:

Pilot Survey: CCOICI members and staff support to review and edit the final draft survey questions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_Qk8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_Qk8/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!9QGL3Vl_XUM4EIIG6nyGSDdusuIOZQOzfELmNElwUerZS9pheP2lGmqWZVIyfbvX27Jy8O1xyv5nkIlneKGrpe0tcjs-TD_O2Q$>

Committee members may suggest edits throughout the document, but the following specific input is requested:

  *   Questions 10 and 11 -- Committee members to suggest new language.
  *   Question 16 -- Committee members to suggest new language. Suggestion: "is the use of the CCOICI and TF structure, in consultation with Council regarding priorities, the right mechanism for working on other remaining assignments "

Notes:

1. Welcome from the Chair



  *   Welcome to new Policy staff support member Saewon Lee.

2. WS2 CCG Questions and CCOICI draft responses Re: ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to review and suggest edits to the WS2 CCG questions and draft responses at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IsNuxObExjQwC_EHf6VBGgP7NhLB90KbCqoPPOPViLU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1IsNuxObExjQwC_EHf6VBGgP7NhLB90KbCqoPPOPViLU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!5X8bUhHGybsx-njQAlkMO-G3wJYTCD5AEMfsChpRcL-zEotS6PR4gyT_W05Vsu7TYvQ2mJ5UFKpe75O2xk3B4PAf$> – Update from Manju


  *   Manju sent the response to the CCG.
  *   Next step is for the CCG to meet.

3. GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot: Survey for CCOICI and Task Force current and former members -- Please review the survey questions drafted by Berry: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_Qk8/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_Qk8/edit__;!!PtGJab4!5Mg6Rl1EjS5pNt_Z3LV_-k2kA7k6e-iox0iDnFQ81O_EoGrwilQrygXMWAeBB8yPtZbcYSYT5_90oygCecl0ydVJ$> and suggest edits as you see fit.


  *   Huge thanks to Berry for creating the survey.
  *   Included links to the Framework and Review Proposal at the start and encourage the groups to review the documents or the questions don’t make sense.
  *   Survey is the same format as the Working Group Self- Assessment.
  *   Could expand on the qualitative questions on each assignment.
  *
Question Set 1 - Framework Objectives:


  *   More questions to be more precise.
  *   Trying to get a quantitative aspect in addition to freeform/qualitative.
  *   Had to refer to the Framework document frequently in this section.
Question Set 2 - Framework Scope


  *   Break out questions by topic – concern that we’ll get emotional responses relating to the topic, not how the work was done.  But probably would get that response in any case.  Would get more useful information if you look at the assignments individually.

Question Set 3 - Framework Use of CCOICI:


  *   Switch around Question Set 3 and 4? To move the Task Force questions first? Both the Task Force and CCOICI worked on the SOI assignment.
  *   Looking at this with a fresh eye, the way it is phrased it seems quite clear.
  *   Do we think it’s appropriate to ask separately about SOIs? Could have the same risk of a negative response because of the topic.
  *   Could include it in the first paragraph but only include the topic in Question Set 4 – agreed.
  *   Could we say something like, “Setting aside whether or not you agreed with the final decision, do you think the way this was structured contributed to a unsatisfactory outcome”, but that seems somewhat aggressive.  Don’t see how the outcome affects how people think about how the work was conducted.
  *   Think it is more pertinent to know if people would use the CCOICI again.  This is still helpful as a topic that was not able to be resolved by the CCOICI.
  *   For this question set I think we would be okay setting aside the outcome.
  *   When this was being set up there were concerns about the Council overseeing the group or by the GNSO as a whole. If there isn’t agreement about the structure there will need to be agreement on a new structure.
  *   Do we keep Q10 since there were no decision methodologies? We do need to ask something about this – such as whether there should be one.

ACTION ITEMS: Questions 10 and 11 -- Committee members to suggest new language.

Question Set 4 - Framework Use of Task Forces:


  *   This is specifically on the Task Force; the CCOICI oversees the TF, and the Council oversees the CCOICI.
  *   There is going to be a general review effort for all SOs/ACs and then the CCOICI could continue if the Council agrees.

Question Set 5 - Future Use of CCOICI and Task Forces:


  *   This is the most important part as it is future looking.
  *   Don’t have the list of all the original assignment, but the original list was reduced when this became a pilot. Can link to the original list as these may become future work.
  *   Reference the parent-child structure – if it doesn’t continue in its current form what will replace it.
  *   Question 16 – Not sure it makes sense. The intent of the question is whether you like this structure or not and, if not, what should replace it?
  *   So, Q16, something like "is the use of the CCOICI and TF structure, in consultation with Council regarding priorities, the right mechanism for working on other remaining assignments "

ACTION ITEM: Question 16 -- Committee members to suggest new language. Suggestion: "is the use of the CCOICI and TF structure, in consultation with Council regarding priorities, the right mechanism for working on other remaining assignments "

4. AOB: Next meeting – 10 January 2024 at 12:00 UTC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/attachments/20231220/94a46515/attachment-0001.html>