NOTES | Joint meeting with the GNSO Council Wednesday, 20 October 2021 (19:00 UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Alejandra Reynoso and Philip Fouquart 2. ICANN's Prioritization framework Giovanni gives an overview, in his capacity as chair of the ccNSO SOPC and member of the ccNSO Council. SOPC has been working with ICANN CFO during the past months regarding the prioritization framework. Next Tuesday, the SOPC will meet at ICANN72, scheduled for Tuesday, 26 October 2021 | 19:30-21:00 UTC https://72.schedule.icann.org/meetings/aHmtDhSJo65jpBzGY#/ 4 elements of the prioritisation framework will be discussed next week: * Scope * Frequency * Participants * Technique(s) Moreover, another element came to our attention: conflicting views by various groups regarding priority topics are possible. We already saw this before (SOPC and its GNSO counterpart, the SCBO, which is under the GNSO Council, and has a limited remit) Philip: SCBO does not speak on behalf of the GNSO. SCBO has a different remit compared to the SOPC. Hard to reflect a common view on behalf of the GNSO. Up to the various constituencies within the GNSO. John McElwaine: chair of the SCBO. echoes what Philippe says. Useful to see where we aligned. It was a good exercise. Also to understand terminology used by icann org. We look forward to working with you all. Stephen: Question missing from notes John: too early to determine. Our comments are typically focused not on what the priorities ought to be, but we focus our comments on making sure that there is adequate funding for policy development. Jordan: prioritisation will show whether the strategy of the organisation is coherent If you do not have a strategic outlook, strategising is tricky. Is that something you considered so far. Giovanni: adds an extra layer of complexity. Extra step. Input sought on frequency, among others Philip: Indeed a test for the community. Challenge is 2-fold: * Resources and the ability to provide input in a reasonable amount of time * Balance activities that are not policy development related. That remains the priority in the GNSO. Jeff: comment on possible options for prioritisation Giovanni: prioritisation work by icann org. Done in silos by constituencies? Or a joint effort? Would prefer a group from various constituencies 3. Prioritization by ccNSO and GNSO Councils respectively Jordan: briefing approach by ccNSO in his capacity as Triage Committee chair. Triage committee dealt with incoming requests to date. Aim is to expand the scope of the committee: work plan, developed with staff. Council will discuss this next week. What would be the method? Suggestion is to use PACE. ccNSO needs to set more strategic goals for the ccNSO. Our rules and icann’s bylaws require work on us. Should we prioritise that? Or should we prioritise the work that advances the ccNSO? Philip: process-side of things. Ensure PDPs and WGs are efficient. That led to PDP 3.0. Regarding sorting out the items under our remit Berry: Portfolio Management Suite: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Portfolio+Management... Portfolio Management Suite: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Portfolio+Management... These tools are more for "planning" than "prioritization", but we are working to enhance these to include resource/capacity management. Some likeness to PACE. Once we mature to that level, then we will be in a better position to prioritize current and future work. Philip: basic exercise 2 years ago. List of items that needed to be done in a certain timeframe. Reach out to sub-committees and asked to identify their priorities. The difficulty was: Membership came up with various views on what should come first. Hard to decide for council in the end. Alejandra: Which tools do you use? Philip: none, yet. To be explored. Jordan: even a more extensive exchange of views would be helpful. Perhaps before Christmas, after ICANN72 We are starting to explore an online tool but it is a workflow tool (click up) - we still need to actually decide on the approach to prioritisation underlying it Cheryl: explored 4 different types of tools. Will look for the link to the paper 4. CSC Effectiveness Review 2.0 Maarten: We had our first meeting this week. Agreed on working method, interviews. Can re-use elements from the previous review. Philip: dry topic. Thank you for accommodating the comments we provided on the template. Glad to hear the 2nd review is going well. Hopefully we can do the interviews face-to-face. 5. Coordination between IDN ePDP & ccPDP4 Anil was appointed as alternate ccNSO appointed liaison to the GNSO EPDP effort. Ai-Chin: The goal of the ccPDP4-WG is to report on and recommend a policy for the (de-) selection of Internationalised Domain Name country code Top Level Domain strings (IDN ccTLDS) associated with the country codes assigned to countries, territories or other areas of geopolitical interest listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard and within the framework of the ccNSO Policy Development Process. ccPDP4 WG consists of the full Working Group and 2 sub-groups. The work by the sub-groups will feed into the full Working Group. 1. Subgroup 1: On Variant Management. There are areas of potential overlap between the work by the ccPDP4-VM subgroup - which is reviewing IDN Variant TLD Recommendations and the ICANN org staff paper - and the work by the full group that need to be clarified. The ccPDP4-VM group will soon prepare a recommendation to the full group for its consideration. 2. Subgroup 2: on the de-selection of IDN ccTLD strings (ccPDP4-DS), tasked to define the trigger event(s) that will cause the start of the (IDN) ccTLD retirement process. The retirement process itself is out of scope of ccPDP4 and defined as part of ccPDP3. 3. Future: potential additional sub-group on confusing similarity foreseen. Donna: chair of GNSO IDN EPDP. recently replaced Edmun Chung, who is stepping up to the Board next week. Variant management of gTLDs is the core. Lots of work done by RZ-LGR groups. This is important to our work. Formal liaison: Anil, and Dennis Tang from GNSO side. Particular elements where we should coordinate on? Request by ICANN Board. Tatiana: both groups have members in IDN EPDP and ccPDP4, who interact with both groups. More granular level of detail in EPDP compared to ccPDP4. Outcomes should be consistent, also in line with the ICANn Board of Directors. Anil: thank you for nominating me as liaison. Thanks to Ai-Chin and Donna. Alejandra: It is our understanding that GNSO requested possible deferral of the IDN Guidelines v.04. Is that correct? Why is there a need to defer? Tatiana: lack of coordination. We should have discussed this with you. Contractual requirements for contracted parties in GNSO. We operate in a different environment. What are your thoughts on the current version? Any concerns on having them deferred, while the work of the EPDP and ccPDP4 continue? Concerns: * RYSG expressed concerns that contradicting results might come out * Operational aspects, better to be discussed in a policy development * Security and stability impact Jeff: I think the main issue with the IDN Guidelines was that they rely on certain policy decisions which are being worked through in the IDN ePDP. And therefore it made sense that we finish the policy first before finalizing the Guidelines. Alejandra: just curiosity. Why this happened. Jeff: If there are any negative impacts, please do let us know. Alejandra: the ccNSO will soon provide a response to the GNSO EPDP questionnaire, shortly after 16 November. The questionnaire has been referred to the ccNSO ccPDP4 WG, to the Variant Management sub-group specifically. 6. AOB none 7. Closure Thank you all. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org