Dear All,

Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Tuesday, 16 July at 13:00 UTC.

Staff has post to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/z6ijBg

Best Regards,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

GNSO Policy Support Specialist

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

ACTION ITEMS:

Improvement #3

Marie, in collaboration with staff, to suggest modification to the language regarding a member’s change of affiliation mid-stream. Noting the case that the WG Chair may restrict someone who wants to join a WG with the purpose of tipping the scale of a consensus call.
Staff to revise the point regarding “ethical conduct and integrity” on page 4 to make sure it is consistent with the relevant points in the statement of participation.
Staff, in collaboration with Marie, to add a brief introduction to the skill guides document and to cross reference the background document. (DONE)
After staff has revised both background and skill guides documents related Improvement #3, the Small Team to provide input to the new revision.

Improvement #2

Marie to review the new version of Improvement #2 document and staff to incorporate suggestions to produce a new version for the Small Team to review.
Staff to include the document for Improvement #2 in the tracking document.

NOTES:

Welcome and roll call

Background and context

· There are two separate documents due to the page formatting difference. The guide needs to be in the landscape format, and the background document needs to be in the portrait format.

· Quotations about WG members’ criteria and expectations were pulled from the GNSO working group guidelines

· Existing process is that anyone can join a WG at any point, given that he/she catches up on the work

· Marie is the being the lead for recommendation #3. The goal for the documents is to ensure that WG members know what the Council expects of them.

· Regarding the change of a WG member’s affiliation, it does not happen often. Concerned about the implication of calling this out (e.g., bad faith participation?). It has happened before. It is possible that a member changes affiliation mid-stream to give the impression to the outside world that the recommendation coming out of the WG has gotten wide support across different stakeholder groups.

· On page 2, regarding company/organization representation, is it recognized in any WG model? It is not currently covered in any WG model. We should try to think of commonality here. What can apply when a member changes ICANN affiliation regardless of the WG model. We should try to ensure that the change of affiliation is not to game the multistakeholder system to create an impression that a position has wide support across stakeholder groups, tipping the scale for a consensus call.

· It is a concern that an existing member who has not changed his/her organization but changed ICANN affiliation during the course of the WG.

· An existing member switching to another SO/AC would not be a new member. Maybe this concern make sense for the member terms of participation?

· They just need to disclose the change, through the SOI process and that’s usually asked about at the beginning of each meeting.

· Hard to control a person’s change from one ICANN group affiliation to another.

· ACTION ITEM: Marie, in collaboration with staff, to suggest modification to the language regarding a member’s change of affiliation mid-stream. Noting the case that the WG Chair may restrict someone who wants to join a WG with the purpose of tipping the scale of a consensus call.

Working Group member skill guides

· May not need the point about “ethical conduct and integrity” on page 4. It can just link to the statement of participation. The skill requirement here is to not be a horrible person. No problem to have some redundancy regarding the statement of participation to reemphasize the point. Keep this point and link to the statement of participation? Better to avoid repetition. It is more about behavior rather than skill set.

· Does this document need an introduction paragraph? The background document is really the “introduction” to this skill guides document, but it may be better to keep the guides as a standalone document, so it will benefit from having a brief introduction.

· ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the point regarding “ethical conduct and integrity” on page 4 to make sure it is consistent with the relevant points in the statement of participation.

· ACTION ITEM: Staff, in collaboration with Marie, to add a brief introduction to the skill guides document and to cross reference the background document.

· ACTION ITEM: After staff has revised both background and skill guides documents related Improvement #3, the Small Team to provide input to the new revision.

· Improvement #2 has a lot of comments/suggestions from the SLACK channel. Staff has already provided a new version. Now should be the last chance to provide comments.

· ACTION ITEM: Marie to review the new version of Improvement #2 document and staff to incorporate suggestions to produce a new version for the Small Team to review.

· ACTION ITEM: Staff to include the document for Improvement #2 in the tracking document.