With apologies to all for radio silence – I’m on vacation and rarely have access to wifi – I’ve made a couple of editing suggestions only. If I understand correctly, the idea is to revert to existing language for now, discuss this at our August meeting and then, if appropriate, take it to the vote in September – yes? That should work: I’m back at my desk on the day of our August Council (airlines willing) and I will try my best to gather any BC reactions to this draft report before that. I’ll copy this over to Mark too so if I’m reading this wrong and you need more, we’ll make sure you have it. The joys of travelling around a rural location… 😉. Have a great weekend, all! Marie From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 02 August 2023 16:39 To: gnso-ccoici@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] For your review by Friday 11 August - updated SOI Recommendations Report Dear All, As discussed during today’s meeting, the staff support team has gone ahead and updated the Recommendations Report in line with today’s discussion (see notes at the bottom of this email). Please review this updated version (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8_X-NMmwrbNhX7BR-mQ3itcg48cFzC/edit) and pay specific attention to: * Chapter 1 – last paragraph of section 1 * Chapter 2 – recommendation 5a (reverted to current exemption requirement) * Annex A – overview of CCOCI consideration of SOI Exemption Please provide any input or suggestions you may have by Friday 11 August at the latest. The objective is to submit the report to the GNSO Council by the document deadline on 14 August, unless more time is needed by the CCOICI members for review. Please use the comment option to provide your input to allow for review by others before changes are applied. Best regards, Julie & Marika Notes & Action items CCOICI meeting on 2 August 1. Welcome 2. Review input received on version 1 and version 2 of exemption language (seehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1dRxPmBjPWEoNwe-UwSeQnLi2GcXLQj4w/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1dRxPmBjPWEoNwe-UwSeQnLi2GcXLQj4w/edit__;!!PtGJab4!9zR-Ve-eRNJO8WJy_rpzZBEDe9nLmKT6Jf1SlUxrcjM9Bhu5WnkNrKpLQ_XSEI6S1TVMbMUkQ7TOvBQIZB7Q2aGvWJziSh1e$>) * The CCOICI reviewed the input provided by the different groups in the google doc * RrSG – neither version is good enough for unanimous approval. Key concern is about transparency principle. * RySG – Neither version is acceptable. RySG did have a lot of conversation about this but did not manage to find support for either version. This is the one thing that RySG is pushing back on – the rest of the recommendations the RySG would like to see adopted and implemented. * IPC – willingness to live with both, but option 1 would be preferred as it better reflects what the SOI is aiming to achieve. Also provided some additional feedback on interpretation of representative as well as suggested some additional language for high level description language. * BC – could also live with either option (as communicated during previous meeting) * ISPCP – cannot support version 2. For version 1, did not simply want to reject this, but have put forward a possible modification (those not being able to disclose should state at start of meetings as well as being able to exclude from participation in consensus calls). * NCSG – version 1 is acceptable, not version 2. * NomCom – in favor to see what comes out of CCOICI conversation and pass back to GNSO Council if is not able to get to consensus. Version 1 with proposed enhancement from ISPCP would likely be acceptable. Not supportive of version 2. * Even with additional language from ISPCP, unlikely to get support from RySG. Talks about taking this to the wider community as it goes against the transparency required by the Bylaws. May need to have further conversations with Board and broader community. Same applies for registrars. 3. If no agreement is found on 2), review input received on how to proceed (see page 3 of google doc) * CCOICI considered input provided on the different options by the different groups. * RySG – adopt everything else and revert for exemption to existing exemption requirements. RySG would take exemption conversation somewhere else. * RrSG also supportive of option C. * IPC – some agreed that option C would be the preferred path, some others thought option A was the best path. But concern that it would throw out some of the good work. Personal view is that option C would be the preferred path. * ISCP – also supportive of option C * NCSG – no particular preference at this point, need to follow up with the group. * NomCom – * If option C is pursued, would need to identify recommendations on which there is consensus and highlight where there is no agreement. Unlikely to get different viewpoints handing back the issue to Council (if option B would be pursued). * Proposed approach – revert exemption language back to current state and include conversation on exemption in an annex so that it is documented but not part of the actual recommendations that the Council would consider for adoption. Action item #1: Staff support team to update the recommendations report as outlined above and share for CCOICI review. 4. Confirm next steps * Staff support team to share updated report by Thursday 5 August at the latest. Following that, CCOICI to indicate whether they are comfortable submitting the report by document deadline of 14 August or whether more time is needed for review. This would allow discussion for preliminary discussion in August, followed by a vote in September. * Following completion of this work item, CCOICI will be asked to provide input on the pilot as the Council is expected to review the pilot and decide on if/how to proceed with the CCOICI. * No next call scheduled at this point – if a call is needed, this would be scheduled ad-hoc.