2024-08-14 CCOICI - Meeting #48

Notes/ Action Items

[Action Items]

1. Leadership requests the Team to review the document to CIP-CCG Framework [docs.google.com]for the GNSO Council and provide input (by next week).
2. Leadership requests the Team to review the comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider and provide input – Any individual feedback is welcome and does not necessarily need to represent the SG/C’s feedback.
3. Support Staff to draft the charter and circulate with the Team prior to the next meeting, which will be held on 28 August.

[Notes]

1. Welcome and SOI Updates

• No meeting next week, as there is an APrIGF in Taipei; the meeting to resume on 28 August

1. Announcements, Work plan, and upcoming meeting schedule
   1. Provide inputs [docs.google.com] to CIP-CCG Framework for the GNSO Council

• Again, please provide inputs to the principle document for CIP-CCG Framework (link above) by next week.

                *Action Item: Leadership requests the Team to review the document to CIP-CCG Framework [docs.google.com]for the GNSO Council and provide input.

1. CCOICI Charter Update

• Concerned about the upcoming work and the adequate resources for CCOICI, especially as most members are Councilors, which doubles the commitment of Councilors moving forward; Should consider that this Standing Committee (SC) may be meeting 4-5 times per month, which will be a heavy commitment.

1. Observations from ccNSO’s Guidelines Review Committee (GRC)

• For more information, see GRC Charter & Wiki:https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/108401081/Guidelines+Review+Committee)
• CCOICI Support Staff reached out to Support Staff from ccNSO in order to better understand the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC), which is their version of CCOICI and has been around since 2014, tasked to review the ccNSO and it work which is sent back to the ccNSO for adoption. It was an intriguing exercise to review GRC and their work/charter to help CCOICI draft the charter, especially when considering resources.
• Roster: there are 2 ccNSO Councilors that are comprised of this group – the Committee relies on the broader GRC members to do the work. Maybe this was a decision not to overburden the Councilors.
• GRC Charter: Their Charter was revised in 2022 -  the GRC was formed to make it a permanent SC in 2014; Scope determines the GRC’s activities and what is within and even, out of scope; Decision-making methodology is called by the Chair; No term limits of members (something to consider for CCOICI); Subgroup (similar to Task Force of CCOICI)
• Discussion Item:

• Leadership suggests the Team to consider the membership structure, especially when considering the workload of the GNSO Council, and if so, what is the minimum participation necessary from the Council? Also, the need for a Board member within the Committee?

1. Review past and future use cases [docs.google.com]

• Reviewed some remaining use cases again through the above document (link above):

1) Use Case 1 – SOI: Concerned for workload and adequate resources when considering this particular activity, especially when the membership was to includea maximum of 2 representatives from each Constituency or Stakeholder Group1 and up to 2 alternates -  the membership ended up being so small that there was no official “Chair” (or anyone who stepped up to be one); the outcome was not adopted.

2) Use Case 2 – Board Ready Recommendations: The membership comprises of mostly the Council members.

3) Use Case 3 – Policy Status Report (PSR): Most probably to be discussed during the next GNSO Council SPS at the end of 2024.

1. Continue to review comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider

• Input from groups required, especially related to the first 2 rows of the spreadsheet (link above) at the macro level (mission, objective, and scope): Received inputs from NCSG and RySG (Jennifer’s personal thoughts – may still need consideration by RySG – see D2 and D3 of the charter log tab within the spreadsheet)
• When comparing to the GRC scope of activities – It was not overly prescriptive, which is needed for a permanent charter.
• Staff started drafting the charter prior to the Team’s exercise/discussion, and now it will change extensively based on the discussions and exercise so far.
• Discussion Item:

• Leadership and Team members agreed to change the membership structure of CCOICI, a starting point for when drafting the charter, to be more similar to ccNSO’s GRC.

1. Next Steps & AOB (3 mins)

• During the week off/just before the next meeting on 28 August, Staff will circulate the draft of the charter to the Team for review.
• Reminder about the CIP-CCG Input and the Comparison Table Input to help draft the charter.

                *Action Items: 1) Staff to draft the charter for the Team’s review; 2) Leadership requests the Team to review the document to CIP-CCG Framework [docs.google.com] for the GNSO Council and provide input; 3) Leadership requests the Team to review the comparison table [docs.google.com] of pilot charter against principles/questions to consider and provide input – Any individual feedback and not necessarily representing the SG/C’s feedback.