Dear All, We hope this email finds you well. Per Action Item 2 below from the CCOICI meeting on Wednesday, 10 January at 12:00 UTC, please find in the following link the draft message to the SGs/Cs, requesting survey response: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1afvdnsTPykp2pPGCUt3e2AviXHe7iiLI/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100559844055875671804&rtpof=true&sd=true To follow-up with Action Item 3 (GNSO Secretariat to send out the survey and message to the SGs/Cs – so groups can discuss at ICANN79) by early February, rather than the week of 22 February, we kindly ask for your review and comments by Wednesday, 31 January 2024, COB. Much appreciated, Julie, Berry, Caitlin, and Saewon. Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (669) 215.8621 Email: saewon.lee@icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 8:17 AM To: "gnso-ccoici@icann.org" <gnso-ccoici@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] Actions & Notes | CCOICI meeting on Wednesday 10 January at 12:00 UTC Dear All, Please see the following actions and notes for the CCOICI meeting on Wednesday, 10 January at 12:00 UTC. Best regards, Julie Acton Items: 1. Staff to modify the pilot survey based on the discussion/minor changes. 2. Staff to send a draft of the message to the SGs/Cs to accompany the survey to the CCOICI to review. 3. GNSO Secretariat to send out the survey and message to the SGs/Cs – target week of 22 February – so groups can discuss at ICANN79. Notes: 1. Welcome from the Chair 2. GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot: Develop a survey for CCOICI and Task Force current and former members: a. Test the pilot survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SJFPCZW [surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surveymonkey.com/r/SJFPCZW__;!!PtGJab4!6cMD489QyKEW0W2yUXRXq9g7Cqkn5oQHW5e1UOfYUQEye0guGREz9uUBPGZuN7AZC0VxIOTxcty1N2oFjMYpPEYFAdNLDiMLrw$>. For ease of reference, here’s the link to the draft questions from the last call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1MLHZJEybTLVEatR6QZz0vKRcY4FdeGe8UO0zb-j_Qk8/edit__;!!PtGJab4!6cMD489QyKEW0W2yUXRXq9g7Cqkn5oQHW5e1UOfYUQEye0guGREz9uUBPGZuN7AZC0VxIOTxcty1N2oFjMYpPEYFAdNBOyKtqw$> First page: * Make these required responses. * First sentence change to “Before completing the survey please review…” not “it is recommended”. We want people to review first. * Might be useful to include the approximate time to complete the survey. Sent with the survey or both? Let’s do both. * Question 3: * Should we put CCOICI members or Task Force? Because we are collecting the name and email we will know. But we need a formal response from these groups. * Almost don’t want to include “other” because there isn’t any – not a valid response. Need all the groups to respond. Not clear – should this be explained? * Not sure CCOICI members should fill it out as CCOICI – should only be from the represented group and one response per group. * We should remove “other” to make it simpler and just have one response per group. * Where does this lead Desiree as a NomCom? She should choose NomCom and consult with the other two NomComs. Or each NCA could complete it since they are individuals. * Should we ourselves fill this out as representative? Doesn’t matter as long as it’s one response per group. * Not sure what our purpose is here – would think we want both responses – as participants and as groups represented. * Or have one rule – groups or participants. * Thought this was for input from the SGs/Cs. * This is not a self-assessment – it’s an assessment of the structure and whether it’s the right one. So we need to decide whether we should recuse ourselves, or it doesn’t matter. Not make it mandatory to recuse as long as you are representing your group. Page 2: Question Set 1 * Suggest making the questions with choices mandatory – then we should also send out the set of questions ahead of time/separate from the survey. Page 3: Question Set 2 - scope * Asking question per assignment – break out into three different subsets. * But if we have questions at the topic level does that help to evaluate the framework? * Anyone not happy with the framework if we don’t break it out by topic it might skew the results. * How we got to questions Set 1 and Set 2 – we had a double-barreled question that we broke down. They now are complementary – objective and scope. Do we want to ask about the topics or the framework? Page 4: Question Set 3 * Break the paragraph into two parts to make it clearer. Page 5: Question Set 4 * We can also break the paragraph into two parts. And change “yours” to “your”. Page 6: Question Set 5 * 2) space missing * Question 21 – How do you foresee this other [work] being completed? Insert “work”. General comment * There is a score for the quantitative questions. * If we can’t hide it we should explain it. b. Next steps and timing * Modify the survey with the minor changes – no need to meet to discuss again. * When should we send it out and how much time? Could probably send it out early next week and announce at the Council call. We will need to give the groups time to coordinate a response – say 26 February. What does the group think about letting them use the ICANN meeting to respond? Agree that we should allow time for groups to coordinate responses. * Staff will have a draft message for this group to review and send feedback on the list. And we target sending to SG/Cs week of 22 Feb. 3. AOB: Next meeting TBD