Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DRR1Cw. Best regards, Ariel, Julie and Marika CCOICI Meeting on Wednesday 25 May at 12.00 UTC Action items: 1. Recommendation 2.1.2: Staff notes that the Committee members agree with the staff’s assessment of the status as “Implementation Planned”, and staff suggested Options 1 and 2, and will alert the Council accordingly. 2. Recommendations 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4: Staff notes that the Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of the status as “Complete” and staff will notify the Council accordingly. 3. GNSO Secretariat staff to send the invite for the meeting on 08 June at 12.00 UTC. Notes: 1. Welcome a. Work plan status: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h38SgFeOdwumE7fUjLu4mB0CcXnwoncUpICq... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h38SgFeOdwumE7fUjLu4mB0CcXnwoncUpICqp_qINnk/edit*gid=0__;Iw!!PtGJab4!vVlAUPsBD1M90kL2on0a6dfYSLKeQgwE8CY7oEpojdKDpQ4Ll3UkRbiI7bTOkexk6oD5QWo$> b. Reminder – status designations: * "Complete": Recommended action/decision is completed by the GNSO Council * "Partially Complete": Recommended action/decision is partially completed by the GNSO Council, further implementation may or may not be within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council * "Action/Decision Required": GNSO Council needs to make a decision on whether the recommended action/decision is applicable for action by the GNSO Council and assign an appropriate implementation status in this list * "Not applicable for action": Recommended action/decision and its respective implementation is not within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council * "Implementation Planned": GNSO Council is planning to implement the recommended action/decision * "Implementation Ongoing": GNSO Council’s implementation on the recommended action/decision is ongoing * "Won't be Implemented": Recommended action/decision is within scope to be addressed by the GNSO Council, but GNSO Council chooses not to implement (this may apply to the non-mandatory recommendations) 2. Continue review of Recommendation #2 – Guidelines for Good Faith Conduct (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zuQVN4zbz4zBYlZM4Mtfac7lj2j2dlna/edit#[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1zuQVN4zbz4zBYlZM4Mtfac7lj2j2dlna/edit__;!!PtGJab4!9wJTDJsTSM07VUPEnkHhifWpGVuw_BUlxVruMidXUx0IgTfCtNZrlaIWgBI63m-W8t8PYd0cTfjq4CGN0yLt-f8L5tFnBteAf80$> and background – Empowered Community & Guidelines for GNSO Council (see https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FK4jb068gTi-2WtMXjkj9RElnp7_CwMuwjrc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FK4jb068gTi-2WtMXjkj9RElnp7_CwMuwjrcc9PwpOk/edit*slide=id.gd620c21462_2_778__;Iw!!PtGJab4!9wJTDJsTSM07VUPEnkHhifWpGVuw_BUlxVruMidXUx0IgTfCtNZrlaIWgBI63m-W8t8PYd0cTfjq4CGN0yLt-f8L5tFnzKhsCRs$>) a. Consider recommendations 2.1.2, 2.2.1 – 2.2.4 WS2 Recommendation 2.1.2: 2.1.2 Must: 2.1.2.1 Be believed by the Indemnified Party to be true. 2.1.2.2 Be in writing. 2.1.2.3 Contain sufficient detail to verify facts; if verifiable facts are asserted. 2.1.2.4 Supply supporting evidence if available/applicable. 2.1.2.5 Include references to applicable by-laws and/or procedures if the assertion is that a specific by-law or procedure has been breached. 2.1.2.6 Be respectful and professional in tone. The NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> are not in conflict with the requirements from WS2 Recommendation 2.1.2. Staff notes that: * Section 4.2.2 of these two Guidelines includes the phrase “...shall include at least the following” with respect to the requirements for such petitions. This phrase offers wide discretion for inclusion of other requirements, criteria, or material to be provided by the petitioner. Further, there is no restrictive language anywhere in the Guidelines to say that additional requirements for the petitions are prohibited or will not be considered. In other words, there is nothing preventing the petitioner from satisfying the WS2 requirements when following the process as outlined in the Guidelines. Staff Assessment of 2.1.2 “Implementation Planned” Rationale: The NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> are not in conflict with WS2 Rec 2.1.2. * Offers wide discretion for inclusion of other requirements, criteria, or material to be provided by the petitioner. * There is no restrictive language to say that additional requirements for the petitions are prohibited or will not be considered. * Nothing prevents the petitioner from satisfying the WS2 requirements when following the process as outlined in the Guidelines. However, guidelines should draw specific and explicit attention to the additional mandatory requirements as outlined in WS2 Rec 2.1.2. * GNSO Council requested that relevant Guidelines be reviewed after an action of the GNSO as a DP has been completed, or on an annual basis if no action is initiated. * GNSO Council is expected to have an opportunity to update the Guidelines as an outcome of such review or as needed, including to satisfy the mandatory WS2 requirements. * Staff believes it is necessary to draw attention to the mandatory requirements as outlines in WS2 Rec 2.1.2. * Opportunity to update the guidelines as the result of a review. Staff Suggestion for Completing Implementation of 2.1.2 * CCOICI may wish to ask the GNSO Council to consider the following approaches, including but not limited to: * Option 1: Update Section 4.2.2 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> by inserting the following phrase between “...the Petition shall” and “...​​include at least the following” in the first paragraph: “in addition to satisfying the requirements set out in Recommendation 2.1.2 of the WS2 Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-27mar18-en.pdf>”. * Option 2: Update the GNSO webpage<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures> which contains all the Guidelines by including a note that petitioners utilizing the Board Director Removal related Guidelines should also refer to the mandatory requirements outlined in the Recommendation 2.1.2 of the WS2 Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-27mar18-en.pdf>. * Committee could do one or both of the options or could decide on other options. * Support in the Committee for adopting both options. * Options 2 is simpler because we don’t have to update the guidelines. Changing the guidelines will require a decision from Council. * If we just update the website people may not notice it. For the sake of completeness it is best to do Options 1 and 2. * As this is unlikely to be controversial, the Council may consider this at the same time as it considers the status designations. * Staff will alert the Council of the Committee’s agreement with the status as “Implementation Planned” and the implementation of Options 1 and 2. The Council could approve a package of changes. WS2 Recommendation 2.2.1: 2.2 Recommendations for guidelines with respect to procedures for consideration of board removal notices by SO/ACs to include: 2.2.1 Reasonable time frames for investigation by SO/AC councils or the equivalent decision-making structures if the SO/AC deems that an investigation is required. Staff Assessment of 2.2.1 “Complete" * Section 4.2.4 and Section 4.2.5 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> satisfy the “investigation” requirement. Section 4.2.4 requires that the GNSO Council holds a dialogue between the Director subject to the petition, the Chair of the Board (or Vice Chair of the Board if the Chair is the affected Director), the Petitioner, and the GNSO Representative on the EC Administration. Section 4.2.5 states that GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) be asked to provide feedback, opinion, or comments on the merits of the petition, which will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. The dialogue and the GNSO community feedback should help the GNSO Council investigate the situation and decide whether to support such a petition. * Section 4.2.11 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and Section 4.2.8 of the SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> satisfy the “reasonable time frames” requirement for investigation. The time tables in those sections set out the suggested deadlines for the GNSO Council to hold the dialogue (per Section 4.2.4) and to receive GNSO community feedback (per Section 4.2.5). The time tables were developed by following the timeline in the ICANN Bylaws with respect to the Director Removal Petition Period and taking into account other necessary administrative steps for processing the petition. * The GNSO Council also provides similar guidance with respect to a NomCom Director Removal petition initiated by another Decisional Participant. Section 4.3.3 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> states that during a three (3) day period directly following the receipt of the Petition Notice, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies may provide their feedback, opinions or comments, which may help the GNSO Council decide whether it wishes to support such a petition. * The Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of Recommendation 2.2.1 as “Complete”. Staff will notify the Council accordingly. WS2 Recommendation 2.2.2: 2.2.2 Period of review by the entire membership of the SO/AC provided the SO/AC organizational structure customarily provides review for individual members; otherwise, period of review by those empowered to represent the SO/AC in decisions of this nature Staff Assessment of 2.2.2 “Complete" * As mentioned above, Section 4.2.5 and Section 4.3.3 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf>, as well as Section 4.2.5 of the SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> include the expectation and the suggested time period for the wider GNSO community to review the petition and provide feedback on its merits. The GNSO community feedback is intended to help the GNSO Council make an informed decision on whether to support such a petition. * The Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of Recommendation 2.2.2 as “Complete”. Staff will notify the Council accordingly. WS2 Recommendation 2.2.3: 2.2.3 Consistent and transparent voting method for accepting or rejecting a petition; such voting maybe be by the entire membership or those empowered to represent the SO/AC in decisions of this nature. Staff Assessment of 2.2.3 “Complete" * Section 4.2.6 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> outline the method for the GNSO Council to decide whether to support or reject such a petition, as well as specifies the threshold needed to reach a decision in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws. * In addition, Section 4.3.4 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> includes similar guidance regarding the voting method for the GNSO Council to decide whether to support a petition initiated by another Decisional Participant. * The Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of Recommendation 2.2.3 as “Complete”. Staff will notify the Council accordingly. WS2 Recommendation 2.2.4: 2.2.4 Documentation of the community process and how decisions are reached. Staff Assessment of 2.2.4 “Complete" * Section 4.2.7 of the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> and SO/AC Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-so-ac-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> outline the method for informing the community, the other Decisional Participants, and the EC Administration the GNSO Council decision on the petition. The guidelines specify the required information to be included in the Petition Notice, such as the GNSO Council decision and the rationale for the decision. * In addition, Section 4.3.5 the NomCom Director Removal Guideline<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-d-nomcom-director-removal-12dec19-en.pdf> includes similar guidance regarding informing the ICANN org, the other Decisional Participants, and the EC Administration the GNSO Council’s decision whether to support a petition initiated by another Decisional Participant. The guidelines specify the required information to be included in a written notice. * The Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of Recommendation 2.2.4 as “Complete”. Staff will notify the Council accordingly. b. Confirm status designation ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 2.1.2: Staff notes that the Committee members agree with the staff’s assessment of the status as “Implementation Planned”, and staff suggested Options 1 and 2, and will alert the Council accordingly. ACTION ITEM: Recommendations 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4: Staff notes that the Committee agrees with the staff’s assessment of the status as “Complete” and staff will notify the Council accordingly. 3. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Wednesday 8 June at 12.00 UTC) * Schedule unless there are travel conflicts. * Haven’t scheduled for the week after ICANN74 yet. * There is not specific due date for the work and the Committee is making good progress. * Would be helpful to have the meeting on 08 June. Then the last item is on the human rights framework. ACTION ITEM: GNSO Secretariat staff to send the invite for the meeting on 08 June at 12.00 UTC.