Dear members of the CCOICI, Please see below the action items and brief notes for the meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 20 October at 13.00 UTC. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JYMZCg. The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday, 10 November at 13.00 UTC. Kind regards, Marika & Julie Action Items: 1. WG Self-Assessment Assignment #3: Staff to summarize feedback to the survey questions and circulate to the CCOICI members to review. 2. Next Meeting: Staff will schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 10 November at 13:00 UTC. Notes: Proposed Agenda – CCOICI Meeting on Wednesday 20 October at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Status update on SOI Task Force Assignment (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-October/025038.html) * Mindful of the remote circumstances, this item has been added as an AOB item on the GNSO Council agenda for the next meeting, noting that no comments or concerns have been raised, and that the CCOICI will proceed to call for volunteers for the Task Force. 3. CCOICI Assignment #3: Working Group Self-Assessment a. Review assignment Background: * Around since 2014 and incorporated into the Working Group Guidelines of the GNSO Operating Procedures. * Designed to get feedback at the end of a PDP. * No changes to the self-assessment since 2014. * Most recently used for the SubPro and RPMs PDPs – asked questions about improvement and leadership, as a small pilot. * Some considerations are whether the survey should be administered periodically and not just at the end of the process, and whether leadership evaluation should be included. But noting that a leadership evaluation could potentially chill leadership participation. * End-process feedback only may not be as useful to the PDP as feedback received during the life of the PDP. * So far response rates are quite low, not sure if that is because the survey is too long or reflects fatigue. * In the recent surveys received some support for regularly occurring checkpoints seemed a good idea to some. b. Review initial input received on survey questions: * Four responses to the survey for initial input. Question #2: Initial thoughts on improvements and enhancements that can be introduced * Highlights: * Suggested allowing feedback on leadership. * Suggestion that general revision is a good idea. * Important for the input to be timely and workable with short and specific surveys, self-contained, encouraged quieter voices to provide input (multiple choice). Discussion: * It would be a big change if the survey is done periodically rather than or in addition to at the end of the PDP. * Some problems are due to the tools and survey design. Simplifying the survey could help a lot. This particular question #2 was particularly long and difficult to answer without going through the rest of the survey. Design it to ensure that it is brief. * Could use a survey in combination with an interview. * Could consider having the WG take a sample WG Self-Assessment survey – noting that it is fairly lengthy; a periodic mid-cycle survey could be shorter. * Did have exit interviews with the SubPro and RPMs PDP Chairs – could consider this in parallel with a survey. * This is considered in the context of PDP 3.0 to assist the GNSO Council in its role as the manager of the PDP, to flag if there are issues through periodical surveys to allow for course correction if there are problems. Questions #3, #4, #5 and #6: Should a more periodic survey be introduced, and if so, what impact does this have on the existing ‘end of life’ survey? and etc. * More interesting to link the survey to milestones, rather than tied to a particular period of time (6 months for example). * Surveys are just a way to collect data; there are other ways too – such as calls with PDP chairs. * On one hand you don’t want to overload the WG, but you don’t want them to go on too long without getting feedback. Could tie to milestones or no later than X amount of time. Don’t run the survey just for the sake of it, but also not to leave it before too long. * Could consider focus groups – asking if the respondent could be contacted for further feedback to get more in-depth insight. * Surveys should be included in the timing each time the WG achieves a milestone. Question #7 and #8: If you responded that there should be a periodic survey, should the Working Group Self-Assessment at the end of a WG's lifecycle remain in place? And etc. * Yes or yes with some modification. * Current form of the survey could serve as a template to be reviewed at the time of planning to ensure work-specific items can be captured. * Question gets at the idea that surveys could be more dynamic. Questions #9 and #10: Should an assessment of the performance of WG leadership be part of the WG Self-Assessment? If yes, how can a chilling effect be avoided? And etc. * Most respondents suggested that leadership should be included. * Assessment of leadership should not be a way to apply pressure or influence. * Could be a way to say good things about the leadership. * When you step up to a role it’s fair to be evaluated, but there needs to be some level of discretion in the way the input is collected. These types of responses shouldn’t be public – through someone who is neutral. * How to balance being transparent – maybe with some high level questions, with others reviewed by the liaison first and not shared widely. Depends on who is the end audience. * This last time with the self-assessment for SubPro and RPMs PDP, the responses were published without identification – except for those that were easily identifiable; for those we asked if they would be okay if their responses were published. * You want the feedback to be honest and constructive. Question #11: If WG leadership should become part of the WG Self-Assessment, is the draft survey that was developed as part of PDP 3.0 deliberations (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-13-w... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-13-wg-member-survey-leadership-performance-10feb20-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!qNyvDYqDuohF7WiIMSKmA2WM3ohbiVKgOLG1gyosVZwgFqJZ3cntPBqRnZzrs4cJwCNmr1QiCg$>) a helpful starting point? * Majority answered yes. * Collective survey approach will be the best approach, this will prevent the denigration of individual volunteers. We should seem to be encouraging everyone who comes forward to volunteer. * To be discussed: role for the ombudsman? ; confidential feedback to Council leadership? 2 the leadership of the GNSO should evaluate ,before the WG is launched , the interest of the council members * Important role for staff to detect what is going on through the feedback. Look at section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group guidelines. * Possible role for the Ombudsman or Council leadership? c. Discuss next steps & approach * Staff to start drafting a potential response to the survey questions for the CCOICI to review; summarize the feedback to the survey and confirm if that is the right direction. * Have a more detailed discussion of certain questions, such as on periodic surveys, to develop more detailed questions, such as whether changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures are necessary, and what a periodic survey would look like. ACTION ITEM: Staff to summarize feedback to the survey questions and circulate to the CCOICI members to review. 4. Confirm action items & next meeting * No meeting next week during ICANN72. * AOB at the GNSO Council meeting – update on SOI Task Force assignment and WG self-assessment assignment. * Meet immediately after ICANN72, or take the week off? Perhaps meet the second week after ICANN72 – 10 November? ACTION ITEM: Staff will schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 10 November at 13:00 UTC.