Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Tuesday, 06 August 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/V7WjBg Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: - Flip to revise proposal related to 3.6 & 3.7 (Improvement #9), incorporating feedback from the Small Team and in collaboration with staff; target to share a revision at the end of August - Staff to follow up on the procurement process to launch the ABR asap (Improvement #4) - Staff to share the escalation process diagram (editable version if possible) of Improvement #11 with the Small Team, including use cases (note that diagram was created via Visio) - Staff to remind Small Team about the finalization deadlines for relevant improvements NOTES: 1. Welcome and roll call 2. #9 & #15 – Review of memo from Flip Petillion (18 July 2019) - The intent is to clarify that an appeal in 3.7 has no suspensive effect. There is a need to clarify the process and add relevant language. - Footnote five (on page 3 of the memo) does not need to be retain? - For 3.6, if several members disagree with the Chair’s designation, they need 10 days to receive a response. On page 4, an important note about suspensive effect. - For 3.7, it is another topic, an appeal about another member that feels that his/her contribution has been systematically ignored. The process is simpler. Add language regarding abuse. May consider the creation a permanent appeals committee, and add mechanism to standardize how the procedure is conducted (e.g., use of template, clear indication of timeline). - To differentiate, 3.7 is appeal, 3.6 is challenge. - Appeal Committee sitting within the Council seems like a good idea, can help assist the Council leadership in those situations. Wonder how it can be formed – the pool of volunteers is going to be within the Council. It is tricky. The panel also needs to have mediation skills. - 3.6 language does not prescribe how the chartering organization deals with the Complaint, so the language needs to be updated and need to provide specific guidelines. Concern about how to set up the group on a standing basis. There are only 1-2 cases that the process has been evoked. The process is intensive and requires time/commitment from people involved. If the panel is dormant for 2-3 years, how to reactive the group when an appeal happens and make sure they are aware of the procedure? - We have had only two complaints to date while these procedures have already been in place for quite a few years. And the complaints came from the same person. How can we improve those process based on the experience? - Would these members in the appeal panel need to be the members of the GNSO Council? Can former members be called upon to handle appeals? - It may be worth reaching out to previous Council leadership and current ones (there is some overlap with this group) to see what their perspective is on this proposal based on their experience with the previous complaint? - The Appeal Committee can have one GNSO Chair/Council Vice Chair, three Council members, one liaison for the PDP, and collaboration with the Ombudsman who provides mediation assistance. Have a hybrid solution involving the Council and Liaison - Is the Appeal Committee being overengineered, as those appeal cases don’t happen that often. The people involved in appeals need to understand how the GNSO works. Including trained mediators would be helpful. - Recommend having Council leadership as a permanent feature (i.e., ex-officio). - It is more important to outline the steps that need to be taken and by whom than creating new structures. - It’s important to maintain a little flexibility since we don’t have a great deal of experience with these appeals. - Council leadership may not have the expertise and impartiality to perform the role. - Note that this position has just been published so maybe soon some of this expertise may also be available in-house: https://cho.tbe.taleo.net/cho02/ats/careers/v2/viewRequisition?org=ICANN&cws... - Would it be helpful to first focus on the steps and process to be followed and be agnostic to the how for now? Once you have all agreed on the steps, it may be easier to see what would be the appropriate structure / people / group? - Some steps need to be further developed and clarified regarding 3.6. Maybe it will become clear whether a permanent structure is really needed - ACTION ITEM: Flip to revise proposal related to 3.6 & 3.7 (improvement #9), incorporating feedback from the Small Team and in collaboration with staff; target to share a revision at the end of August 3. #4 - Recommend setting a firm deadline to finalize the document, so that the ABR can be moved forward as soon as possible during FY20. - Applicability of the GNSO council? Even consensus building needs to happen across ICANN in different context, but definitions of consensus, guidelines, and techniques can be shared. - It does not require a full-blown RFP, it can go directly to some providers that ICANN already has a relationship with (e.g., David Colb, CBI, etc.). Small Team are welcome to recommend other suitable providers. Staff will send out the request to those providers and conduct evaluation in consultation with the Council leadership / Small Team. The process shouldn’t be lengthy. - ACTION ITEM: Staff to follow up on the procurement process to launch the ABR asap. 4. AOB - For #11, status and condition codes are imbedded for each individual project. Is there any objection to this? If no, staff will move forward to get this rolled out in preparation for the project list shared prior to/during Council meetings starting from August. No objection from Small Team. - Need feedback for the final deliverable for the escalation procedure. The diagram looks complicated, but the actual process is not. - Put together a package of work product -- e.g., summary timeline, work plan, action items, Gantt chart -- which communicate status to the WG. They will help address/satisfy the requirements of improvement #16 as well. - ACTION ITEM: Staff to share the escalation process diagram (editable version if possible) of Improvement #11 with the Small Team, including use cases (note that diagram was created via Visio) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to remind Small Team about the finalization deadlines for relevant improvements