2021-01-27 Joint (GNSO) SCBO & (ccNSO) SOPC #06

Notes/ Action Items

Agenda wiki: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/GCSCOIBOP/pages/113148944/2021-01-27+Joint+GNSO+SCBO+ccNSO+SOPC+06

1. Confirm agenda

1. Review of key FY22 Operating Plan and Budget topics from each Supporting Organization

Welcome by John McElwaine, Chair SCBO, who welcomes this meeting as a follow-up from the joint meeting last year. Was helpful for the GNSO in finalizing its comments on the FY strat. plan.

SCBO members contain GNSO Councilors and subject-matter experts from various constituents. Started analysis of PTI and IANA budget in November. Group re-convened in November, after GNSO Council elections. FY22 Operating Plan and Budget: they have some draft comments for discussion.

Giovanni Seppia welcomes the joint meeting. SOPC recently recruited new committee members. Workload was distributed a few weeks ago. Preliminary meeting: agreement to divide the committee into 3 teams:

• 2020-2026 planning 
• Operating initiatives
• Functional activities

Deadline for the sub-teams is 2 February. Collected input will be sent to Giovanni, who will share the consolidated comment on 9 Feb to SOPC. Submission of the comments will be done on 14 Feb.

A survey was circulated among SOPC members: what do SOPC members consider to be priority? Operational initiatives and functional activity. Most SOPC members assigned high priority to the Operationing initiatives and functional activity with technical focus (e.g. evolution Root Server System)

1. Other Materials

1. Link to FY22 public comment [icann.org]
   1. Link to GNSO Council’s FY21 Submission
   2. Link to CCNSO's FY21 Submission

 High-level overview of the SCBO comments last year:

• GNSO is responsible for management of policy development. Project management is main topic during GNSO Council meetings. Understanding of what to expect in the future and plan accordingly. Comments focus on the policy making roles
• Low/mid/high range estimates were given to the activities. More details were requested
• Activities to address volunteer burn-out. Community needs better understanding of the work that goes into the various WGs
• Strategic planning: usefulness of face-to-face meetings. Examine long-range cost savings. Community should look into face-to-face meetings: more of them, to get the work done more quickly? Can efficiency be gained, and costs saved?
• Adequate staffing for policy development and support is needed.
• Evolve and strengthen decision-making process to ensure effective policy making. Conflict resolution manager to help out with difficult decisions/processes. New tools and staff for the implementation of GNSO PDP3.0
• Resourcing and prioritization: icann should set aside money for project planning and management oversight.

 High-level overview of the SOPC comments last year:

• Most comments were addressed by icann finance
• 2 main concerns:
  • KPI. Indicators of progress of activities
  • ICANN funding

Great progress from ICANN to those points

Current comment round:

3 SOPC sub-teams are currently still working to finalize their comments.

SOPC sub-group leaders to provide a sneak peek of the work done? None

Jonathan: 

SOPC has been diligent over a number of years. How do you think things have improved in recent times? The information is substantial and intimidating.

Giovanni: 

• ICANN is paying more attention to different scenario’s when it comes to source of funding. More prudent approach regarding possible reviews. Low funding, base case and high funding scenarios. Some past plans were (too?) optimistic, seen the decrease in registration volumes. Participation in the January community webinars on the operating plans. ICANN took into account many factors to have these projections. Sources of info from various parties. But also, official statistics of worldwide economy were taking into account
• Also, improvement for KPIs. There are more now than 5 years ago.
• However, the documents became monumental. Effort to make the narrative more consistent than what we have seen before. The length of the doc does not help the community to comment. The jargon is difficult, especially for non-English speakers. How much does ICANN want the community to be involved? To consider, especially in light of the 300 pages.

Jonathan:

Scenario planning has indeed improved substantially. Scaling back will impact GNSO policy activities. Proposed to think about giving ICANN a structured document about the doc. However, the doc is comprehensive and shows hard work. The size and substance make the comment difficult. Call out areas where ICANN seeks input.

Giovanni:

We divided ourselves in 3 groups, to look at part of the plan. We have decided to assign a priority for our members to the operating and functional activities. What has the highest priority for SOPC members? They should focus on those areas that have high priority for the SOPC. ccTLDs are more interested in the technical functions managed by ICANN. ICANN international engagement has lower priority. Giovanni recommends the SCBO to do a similar exercise. Are there any differences? That helps us to join forces when submitting comments.

Summary by John:

• Add section on the comment regarding the wieldy nature of the doc.
• Suggestion to have translations available
• We need to discuss ideas about having enough info to be able to comment, but not too much info either
• Survey to GNSO to determine priority of the operating activities and functional initiatives

Regarding this comment round, John had some questions for the SOPC.

• ATRT3

Giovanni: yes, will be looked into

• Increase in work for doing policy, (implementation) review teams, but resources seem to remain flat. Does the SOPC have this comment too? Will you comment that additional resources are needed?

Giovanni: teams are still finalizing their input. SOPC has always looked closely at the number of FTEs. Increase HR. SOPC had joint meetings with HR heads at ICANN. Happy with the feedback provided by HR. FTE element of the current planning will be looked into.

• Comment by SOPC last year. Was this answered?

Giovanni: I should go back to our notes, could not adequately prepare the answer to these questions, due to late submission

• Comment they intend to make relating to 5Y strat. plan last year about efficiency of face-to-face meetings. We saw a drop in the budget. Did it harm efficiency? Was it more costly for the organization? Has it opened up a new positive way of getting work done in the ICANN community?

Philippe: not having face to face meetings does not mean all travel money was saved. It might have been spent otherwise. Recognition that in pros/cons analysis of going virtual, there are issues that are hard to deal with virtually. There should be recognition that ad hoc face to face meetings might be needed. Difficulties in GNSO Council related to the fact that we could not meet. Budget needed for this.

Suggested next steps?

Berry: nothing concrete. Both teams have a short-list of topics. Staff support can help the 2 chairs to get these documented.

Bart: short-term is submitting the comments. Longer term: ICANN org will process the comments and will report back ahead of decision-making. SOPC and SCBO to compare notes and see whether the response is satisfactory. Part of the Decisional Participant work of the CCNSO and GNSO. Keep each other informed until this part of the planning cycle is completed, until the adoption by the Board.

John: final question. Is there any info that we can share with the SOPC to help your comment?

Giovanni: thanks for the offer. Perhaps we could have 30 min to go through the comments together? Pre-ICANN70, during ICANN70 or afterwards. Before ICANN addressed the comments. Secretariat will share the priorities survey with SCBO support staff.

John: appreciates the collaboration.

John/Giovanni to determine a time for the next meeting

1. Any other business

AOB? none

1. Next meeting of SCBO: 03 Feb Jan 2021 @ 14:00 UTC