Action Items and Notes: CCOICI Meeting 10 Nov at 13:00 UTC
Dear members of the CCOICI, Please see below the action items and brief notes for the meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 10 November 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, 17 November at 13.00 UTC. Kind regards, Marika & Julie Action Items: 1. ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to review the preliminary responses to the questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit and provide feedback before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 2. ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to take the test survey at https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> and provide feedback in the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit before the meeting on 17 November if possible. Notes: Proposed Agenda – CCOICI Meeting on Wednesday 10 November at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome a. Status update on SOI Task Force Assignment * Olga sent the assignment form to the Council list and asked for comments; none were received. * As there were no comments/objections the next step is the launch a call for volunteers, confirm the participants, and then start the work. * Staff will draft the call for volunteers and will share the draft with the Committee. 2. Working Group Self-Assessment - Review preliminary responses to key questions a. Review preliminary responses (see attached) b. CCOICI Input * Based on the responses to the survey and discussion at the last meeting, staff has developed a draft of the current thinking. * There are three different segments. First segment: Initial thoughts on improvements and enhancements that can be introduced: * Try to reach agreement on the direction the group wants to take on the WG Self-Assessment. * Any changes to the current WG Self-Assessment form would have to go through several steps for approval. * Currently the survey is done at the end of the PDP life cycle so too late to be used for any course correction. * Survey needs to be brief – balance between getting key information and easy enough to complete. * Noted that if there is a periodic survey there should be sufficient flexibility to allow for follow up. * On the need for half-way surveys, it could depend on the work of the PDP: Should it be built into the charter? * CCOICI is looking at work that relates to the PDP, but it is not a PDP. It might suggest changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, but these would have to go out for public comment. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * Confirm any further improvements / enhancements that have not been captured here. Second segment: Should a more periodic survey be introduced, and if so, what impact does this have on the existing ‘end of life’ survey? * If the group is in agreement that periodic surveys should be introduced, these should be tied to PDP milestones. * On a related note the survey milestones could be built into the charter, with the flexibility to adjust as necessary. * A related question could be how could the survey timing be adjusted. * Including in the charter would make it clear what is expected. * Could have standard questions with the ability to add to the basic template. * Could be good to have a template/general structure that could be adjusted. * Question: Should we allow for anonymous responses? Answer: In the past the survey asks for names and affiliations, but the names are only used to confirm the identity and affiliation, as well as to avoid multiple responses from the same person. Responses are aggregated before publication. In a recent case we confirmed that specific responses that were potentially identifiable could still be published. * Current survey seemed to be a bit long. Should be some kind of a warning about the length – number of pages left, etc. * A couple of different tools have been used for the survey. The current tool doesn’t allow for a progress bar, but we could include some text in the introduction indicating the number of questions and pages, but if a progress bar is needed staff can take that recommendation into consideration. * The current survey is lengthy because there is a lot of material to cover; periodic surveys could be shorter. * There needs to be room in the survey for a WG-specific item, particularly if we are relying on third parties or something that the WG needs to rate. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * What would be the preferred periodicity and who/how should this periodicity be confirmed (e.g. is it set in stone, is it confirmed in the charter?) * Complete test run of existing WG Self-Assessment and provide observations and suggestions for changes. * Consider what questions should be asked in the periodic survey. Third segment: Should an assessment of the performance of WG leadership be part of the WG Self-Assessment? * This is an important issue. * Based on the feedback received so far, most agreed that there should be questions included about the performance of WG leadership, but shouldn’t be used to pressure leadership. * Some responses relating to leadership could be viewed by Council leadership and not posted publicly. Make it clear who can see the responses. * PDP 3.0 template seems to be a helpful basis. * Could be helpful to have a base survey template to which specific questions could be added, in coordination with the liaison. * One or two commenters asked if there could be a potential role for the Ombudsman. Ask the question as to whether there is a specific role for the Ombudsman. There is already a path to the Ombudsman. * Consider the HR aspect – that an evaluation could have an impact on someone outside of the ICANN community. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * Review PDP 3.0 template to see if these questions should be incorporated into the periodic survey (part, all, different questions) * Consider if there is a role for the Ombudsman in this process (in addition to the existing role as any community member can appeal to the Ombudsman for assistance) c. Confirm next steps ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to review the preliminary responses to the questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit and provide feedback before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 3. Working Group Self-Assessment – Test WG Self-Assessment Survey a. CCOICI to complete test survey - https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> b. Feedback mechanism * Seems that the links in the introduction don’t work. Staff will look into that. * Think about how the questions and responses can be framed to be easily answered but also actionable, particularly in the Personal Dimensions section. * Committee members should take the survey and provide feedback. * What is a reasonable timeframe to provide feedback – before next meeting or later? Ask for input by the 17th but allow an additional week if necessary. c. Confirm next steps ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to take the test survey at https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> and provide feedback in the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 4. Confirm action items & next meeting (Wednesday 17 November at 13.00 UTC)
Dear All, As mentioned, please note that we’ve added an additional table to the test survey input form (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit) to capture your input on the PDP 3.0 developed WG leadership survey. However, please focus your input for next week’s meeting on the first table concerning the test WG self-assessment. Of course, if you are able to, you are also welcome to already provide your input on the second table as well, but we understand if some additional time may be needed for that homework. In addition, please find here for your review the proposed call for volunteers for the SOI Task Force: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cr32-yJlGaBGLhNvUp5MeGyXitKFDvAC/edit. We would like to circulate this call for volunteers early next week so please provide any input you have by Monday 15 November COB. Thanks, Emily, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:18 To: "gnso-ccoici@icann.org" <gnso-ccoici@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] Action Items and Notes: CCOICI Meeting 10 Nov at 13:00 UTC Dear members of the CCOICI, Please see below the action items and brief notes for the meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 10 November 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, 17 November at 13.00 UTC. Kind regards, Marika & Julie Action Items: 1. ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to review the preliminary responses to the questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit__;!!PtGJab4!qZrZiB9lmq-RkNsIcYtae6F8RzWNFQcUdcGgdyf3tUPQAqBvy_V9upxvHczC5pl3qpNmyR8oKA$> and provide feedback before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 2. ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to take the test survey at https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> and provide feedback in the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit__;!!PtGJab4!qZrZiB9lmq-RkNsIcYtae6F8RzWNFQcUdcGgdyf3tUPQAqBvy_V9upxvHczC5pl3qpO0uTCnug$> before the meeting on 17 November if possible. Notes: Proposed Agenda – CCOICI Meeting on Wednesday 10 November at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome a. Status update on SOI Task Force Assignment * Olga sent the assignment form to the Council list and asked for comments; none were received. * As there were no comments/objections the next step is the launch a call for volunteers, confirm the participants, and then start the work. * Staff will draft the call for volunteers and will share the draft with the Committee. 2. Working Group Self-Assessment - Review preliminary responses to key questions a. Review preliminary responses (see attached) b. CCOICI Input * Based on the responses to the survey and discussion at the last meeting, staff has developed a draft of the current thinking. * There are three different segments. First segment: Initial thoughts on improvements and enhancements that can be introduced: * Try to reach agreement on the direction the group wants to take on the WG Self-Assessment. * Any changes to the current WG Self-Assessment form would have to go through several steps for approval. * Currently the survey is done at the end of the PDP life cycle so too late to be used for any course correction. * Survey needs to be brief – balance between getting key information and easy enough to complete. * Noted that if there is a periodic survey there should be sufficient flexibility to allow for follow up. * On the need for half-way surveys, it could depend on the work of the PDP: Should it be built into the charter? * CCOICI is looking at work that relates to the PDP, but it is not a PDP. It might suggest changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, but these would have to go out for public comment. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * Confirm any further improvements / enhancements that have not been captured here. Second segment: Should a more periodic survey be introduced, and if so, what impact does this have on the existing ‘end of life’ survey? * If the group is in agreement that periodic surveys should be introduced, these should be tied to PDP milestones. * On a related note the survey milestones could be built into the charter, with the flexibility to adjust as necessary. * A related question could be how could the survey timing be adjusted. * Including in the charter would make it clear what is expected. * Could have standard questions with the ability to add to the basic template. * Could be good to have a template/general structure that could be adjusted. * Question: Should we allow for anonymous responses? Answer: In the past the survey asks for names and affiliations, but the names are only used to confirm the identity and affiliation, as well as to avoid multiple responses from the same person. Responses are aggregated before publication. In a recent case we confirmed that specific responses that were potentially identifiable could still be published. * Current survey seemed to be a bit long. Should be some kind of a warning about the length – number of pages left, etc. * A couple of different tools have been used for the survey. The current tool doesn’t allow for a progress bar, but we could include some text in the introduction indicating the number of questions and pages, but if a progress bar is needed staff can take that recommendation into consideration. * The current survey is lengthy because there is a lot of material to cover; periodic surveys could be shorter. * There needs to be room in the survey for a WG-specific item, particularly if we are relying on third parties or something that the WG needs to rate. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * What would be the preferred periodicity and who/how should this periodicity be confirmed (e.g. is it set in stone, is it confirmed in the charter?) * Complete test run of existing WG Self-Assessment and provide observations and suggestions for changes. * Consider what questions should be asked in the periodic survey. Third segment: Should an assessment of the performance of WG leadership be part of the WG Self-Assessment? * This is an important issue. * Based on the feedback received so far, most agreed that there should be questions included about the performance of WG leadership, but shouldn’t be used to pressure leadership. * Some responses relating to leadership could be viewed by Council leadership and not posted publicly. Make it clear who can see the responses. * PDP 3.0 template seems to be a helpful basis. * Could be helpful to have a base survey template to which specific questions could be added, in coordination with the liaison. * One or two commenters asked if there could be a potential role for the Ombudsman. Ask the question as to whether there is a specific role for the Ombudsman. There is already a path to the Ombudsman. * Consider the HR aspect – that an evaluation could have an impact on someone outside of the ICANN community. * Next steps / Question for CCOICI: * Confirm these preliminary responses. * Review PDP 3.0 template to see if these questions should be incorporated into the periodic survey (part, all, different questions) * Consider if there is a role for the Ombudsman in this process (in addition to the existing role as any community member can appeal to the Ombudsman for assistance) c. Confirm next steps ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to review the preliminary responses to the questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1OQZysvuJVX7hfPuKsCdyPQPMVutin30d/edit__;!!PtGJab4!qZrZiB9lmq-RkNsIcYtae6F8RzWNFQcUdcGgdyf3tUPQAqBvy_V9upxvHczC5pl3qpNmyR8oKA$> and provide feedback before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 3. Working Group Self-Assessment – Test WG Self-Assessment Survey a. CCOICI to complete test survey - https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> b. Feedback mechanism * Seems that the links in the introduction don’t work. Staff will look into that. * Think about how the questions and responses can be framed to be easily answered but also actionable, particularly in the Personal Dimensions section. * Committee members should take the survey and provide feedback. * What is a reasonable timeframe to provide feedback – before next meeting or later? Ask for input by the 17th but allow an additional week if necessary. c. Confirm next steps ACTION ITEM: CCOICI members to take the test survey at https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/1x0mgtvjj0efj*page1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!v5WJ7o5wVTpy914nd8QoWXgz4d2SYedpgQhrZPEQ-UvF6RAbR5TfBjWBWcG1zOQoCGZzc7-SAg$> and provide feedback in the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gFFKteIsHih_FVZxy2acqXHmrFcQqT76/edit__;!!PtGJab4!qZrZiB9lmq-RkNsIcYtae6F8RzWNFQcUdcGgdyf3tUPQAqBvy_V9upxvHczC5pl3qpO0uTCnug$> before the meeting on 17 November if possible. 4. Confirm action items & next meeting (Wednesday 17 November at 13.00 UTC)
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Marika Konings