# ccNSO: Guidelines Review Committee Work Session

Session ID: icann87-sched-2Wjfl
Source session ID: 2Wjfl
Official source: https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjfl/ccnso-guidelines-review-committee-work-session

## Generated summary

# ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee Work Session

Machine-generated; not an official record. Exact citation checks do not guarantee semantic accuracy.

The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee met in Bali to continue work on the continuous improvement framework, using an amalgamated document prepared from its final call with Bart. The chair led the committee through outstanding terminology and definitions for indicators under Principles 2 and 3, asking members to consider practicality and workload amid changes in the CCNSO and Secretariat. The group approved several definitions by green-check or thumbs-up votes, including the survey reporting rule, accessible-to-members language, measurable goals, cataloged practice, and a revised 'current charter' definition stripped of the three-year clause after debate about whether charters expire or Council must reconfirm them. Discussion of 'semesterly updates' exposed confusion about 'semester' and whether an update requires substantive change; the item passed with wording to be improved. Participants also debated whether definitions for meeting setting, alignment with TOR, CCNSO goals and 'not found' were needed, often referring unresolved items to Irina and Pablo. The chair presented a straw-test dashboard and phase timeline; ICANN org clarified that the final evaluation is a progress report for public comment and not every improvement must be implemented. [T:20 167.92000000000002–182.689s: “put together an amalgamation from our final call with him”] [T:38 342.15999999999997–360.22s: “Principles 2 and 3 were going to be the test case”] [T:51 461.19–470.02s: “Let's have a discussion about it before we actually do a vote”] [T:108 869.85–877.42s: “with the understanding that semesterly will be changed to something a little less”] [T:231 1716.21–1730.86s: “may we have a vote on the terminology as suggested by Irina”] [T:396 2906.41–2922.199s: “he basically did a straw exercise against the information that we have within the CCNSO available”] [T:437 3240.22–3258.81s: “the progress report that would be going up, published for public comment.”]

## TL;DR

- The GRC worked through definitions for continuous improvement indicators, approving several by green-check or thumbs-up votes and referring some confusing wording for refinement. [T:20 167.92000000000002–182.689s: “put together an amalgamation from our final call with him”] [T:51 461.19–470.02s: “Let's have a discussion about it before we actually do a vote”] [T:108 869.85–877.42s: “with the understanding that semesterly will be changed to something a little less”]
- The 'current charter' definition was changed to 'the latest Council approved version,' dropping the three-year reconfirmation clause after debate over whether old charters remain valid and what 'current' should mean. [T:135 1025.849–1037.08s: “The terminology is the latest Council approved version approved or reconfirmed by Council within the last three years.”] [T:174 1328.96–1335.949s: “So my suggestion is just to say, the latest Council approved version.”] [T:233 1745.69–1751.499s: “And that's a pass.”]
- Discussion of 'semesterly updates' exposed unclear terms; the chair said he would produce better wording overnight and the item passed with that understanding. [T:65 547.74–553.559s: “at least one document update of the priority record in each half of the reporting period.”] [T:75 604.56–617.81s: “I will see if I can come up with a little bit better wordsmithing overnight.”] [T:113 905.36–907.51s: “And I will say the green checks have it.”]

## Main discussion

- The chair explained that the working document was an amalgamation from the committee's final call with Bart and had been shared with members, while Irina and Pablo had seen it earlier. He asked members to assess whether the proposals were practical and to consider effort, noting change within the CCNSO and Secretariat. [T:20 167.92000000000002–182.689s: “put together an amalgamation from our final call with him”] [T:22 184.39–193.989s: “I shared that with you guys last night. Irina and Pablo will have seen it about a week and a half ago.”] [T:25 224.16–234.87s: “When you're looking at this, I want you to consider, if what we have put in here is practical.”] [T:26 235.26–253.119s: “we don't want to overburden, but we also want to have a program that is successful.”]
- For indicators 3.22 and 3.24, the proposed survey reporting rule would report results only with at least eight responses, mark smaller results as indicative, and drop a 30% response-rate floor because attendance is not captured. After the chair opened the floor and no comments were recorded, he declared green checks had it and said the adjustment would be recorded as an agreed status. [T:47 416.57–424.69s: “the very first one there is a survey reporting rule that applies to 3.22 and 3.24.”] [T:48 424.92–436.07s: “report a result only with at least 8 responses below that pool”] [T:49 436.16–452.1s: “Response rate floor, 30%, dropped because attendance is not captured.”] [T:59 524.79–526.97s: “I'm going to say that the Greens have it.”] [T:63 534.82–538.249s: “We'll make that adjustment to make that as an agreed status.”]
- The 3.11 'semesterly updates' definition required at least one document update of the priority record in each half of the reporting period. Pablo and others found it unclear; Peter asked whether an update required substantive change or merely a new timestamp, while Pablo and AJ suggested that a no-change review could still count as the semesterly check. The chair said he would improve the wording overnight and held the vote on that understanding. [T:64 538.72–547.439s: “So then we come up to our next one, the semesterly updates. This applies to 3.11.”] [T:65 547.74–553.559s: “at least one document update of the priority record in each half of the reporting period.”] [T:72 578.96–586.47s: “not only is it a mouthful, but I was trying to understand”] [T:88 706.86–721.179s: “I was wondering what update means.”] [T:90 734.55–746.45s: “Just a new timestamp, or do people have to move something forward?”] [T:99 790.97–801.14s: “the update could be no update as well, as seen just that there is a semesterly check.”] [T:75 604.56–617.81s: “I will see if I can come up with a little bit better wordsmithing overnight.”]
- The original 'current charter' definition required Council approval or reconfirmation within the last three years. AJ and Irina argued that old but Council-approved charters remain valid and proposed dropping the time limit, while Peter warned that without a time span 'current' becomes subjective and said he wanted to retain it. Pablo noted that indicator 2.2.2's annual review would give 'current' an annual meaning. The chair put Irina's shorter wording to a vote and declared it passed. [T:135 1025.849–1037.08s: “The terminology is the latest Council approved version approved or reconfirmed by Council within the last three years.”] [T:139 1046.28–1065.699s: “right now we have charters that are old, and older than 3 years. That doesn't mean that they are not, valid.”] [T:174 1328.96–1335.949s: “So my suggestion is just to say, the latest Council approved version.”] [T:182 1377.83–1382.71s: “I think we should maintain the time span.”] [T:206 1538.2–1540.22s: “Current is very subjective.”] [T:225 1675.88–1680.849s: “current would mean yearly.”] [T:233 1745.69–1751.499s: “And that's a pass.”]
- Irina argued that a review mechanism should not merely be described in a charter or working methods but actually used; otherwise it is not 'in place.' The chair suggested that in the Principle 3 context the existing wording was probably acceptable and, with Pablo and Irina able to correct it later, left the language as it was; the committee then voted on it. [T:238 1772.02–1780.919s: “say when and how the structure reviews its goals and working methods”] [T:243 1807.02–1815.66s: “Maybe not only Charter says, but it's actually, this practice, is used, it happens.”] [T:270 2027.3–2032.07s: “But this method has never been used.”] [T:271 2032.49–2035.13s: “Then it's not in place.”] [T:280 2105.21–2109.739s: “we erred, and we'll be able to correct it. So let's leave it as it is.”] [T:282 2111.8–2113.93s: “Can we vote on that language?”]
- The 'meeting setting' definition drew complaints about its long run-on sentence, and Irina said the definition was unnecessary. The chair noted only two people wanted to strike it, so the language stayed for the time being, with Irina and Pablo to judge long term. Similar questions about 'aligned with TOR,' 'CCNSO goals,' and 'not found' led to referrals or a suggestion to cut rather than clear immediate resolution. [T:311 2302.89–2322.02s: “at least X percentage of post-meeting survey respondents rate the meeting as productive”] [T:323 2388.33–2395.67s: “impressive run on sentence, and I can't parse it even as a native speaker.”] [T:327 2411.42–2417.53s: “we do not need this definition at all.”] [T:346 2517.54–2523.349s: “only two people indicating a scratch on this. That's not enough to actually scratch it.”] [T:348 2538.7–2545.89s: “I guess the language will stay for the time being”] [T:368 2642.83–2656.81s: “we'll refer this to Pablo and Irina to take it out, or keep it as they see fit”] [T:385 2804.08–2816.68s: “I'll suggest that we actually cut it, but I'll leave it to Irina and Pablo”]

## Disagreements

- Participants differed on whether the 'current charter' definition should retain a three-year time span: Peter argued that without it the term 'current' becomes subjective, while Irina and AJ favored striking the time limit because Council-approved charters remain valid. [T:139 1046.28–1065.699s: “right now we have charters that are old, and older than 3 years. That doesn't mean that they are not, valid.”] [T:182 1377.83–1382.71s: “I think we should maintain the time span.”] [T:206 1538.2–1540.22s: “Current is very subjective.”]
- On the review mechanism, Irina argued that 'in place' should mean the mechanism is actually applied, not merely documented; the chair ultimately preferred to leave the existing language for later correction by Pablo and Irina. [T:243 1807.02–1815.66s: “Maybe not only Charter says, but it's actually, this practice, is used, it happens.”] [T:271 2032.49–2035.13s: “Then it's not in place.”] [T:280 2105.21–2109.739s: “we erred, and we'll be able to correct it. So let's leave it as it is.”]

## Outcomes

- The committee moved through the outstanding terminology section item by item, with several definitions approved by green checks or thumbs up and others retained or referred for later refinement. [T:51 461.19–470.02s: “Let's have a discussion about it before we actually do a vote”] [T:108 869.85–877.42s: “with the understanding that semesterly will be changed to something a little less”] [T:348 2538.7–2545.89s: “I guess the language will stay for the time being”]
- The 'current charter' terminology was simplified to 'the latest Council approved version,' removing the prior three-year approval or reconfirmation phrase. [T:174 1328.96–1335.949s: “So my suggestion is just to say, the latest Council approved version.”] [T:231 1716.21–1730.86s: “may we have a vote on the terminology as suggested by Irina”] [T:233 1745.69–1751.499s: “And that's a pass.”]
- The dashboard was presented as an illustration of how the framework could use available CCNSO information, not as a final measurement; the chair described the project as between Phase 1 and Phase 2. [T:399 2937.47–2949.699s: “it was a straw test. Doesn't mean that this is the final test or the accurate”] [T:400 2949.7–2966.3s: “This really becomes a tool for Pablo and Irina to actually work out”] [T:421 3058.13–3068.52s: “we are now, between Phase 1 and Phase 2.”]
- The chair announced a 9 a.m. workshop the next day with the Meeting Programs Committee on its survey process, response rates, validity of information and survey fatigue. [T:444 3320.65–3339.489s: “at 9 o'clock in the morning, the MPC, we're going to be going over and kind of doing a workshop with them.”] [T:446 3355.1–3359.069s: “Call it survey fatigue.”]

## Possible follow-ups (inferred)

- Clarify the final 'semesterly updates' wording, including whether a documented no-change review counts as an update. [T:88 706.86–721.179s: “I was wondering what update means.”] [T:99 790.97–801.14s: “the update could be no update as well, as seen just that there is a semesterly check.”]
- Revisit the definitions for 'meeting setting,' 'aligned with TOR,' and 'not found' when Irina and Pablo report back on their treatment. [T:368 2642.83–2656.81s: “we'll refer this to Pablo and Irina to take it out, or keep it as they see fit”] [T:385 2804.08–2816.68s: “I'll suggest that we actually cut it, but I'll leave it to Irina and Pablo”]
- Check how the revised 'current charter' definition interacts with indicator 2.2.2's annual review and any Council reconfirmation expectations. [T:228 1691.19–1698.54s: “conduct a formal annual review of purpose and goals with documented outcomes.”] [T:225 1675.88–1680.849s: “current would mean yearly.”]
- Address the request that comments submitted in chat be read into the record, since the chair acknowledged difficulty with the chat window. [T:256 1909.32–1913.959s: “I do think it's important that comments in the chat get read into the record.”] [T:248 1846.38–1849.769s: “I apologize to people in the chat, Jordan.”]

## Decisions

- The chair declared the survey reporting rule approved after green checks and said it would be recorded as an agreed status. [T:59 524.79–526.97s: “I'm going to say that the Greens have it.”] [T:63 534.82–538.249s: “We'll make that adjustment to make that as an agreed status.”]
- The committee adopted Irina's proposed replacement for 'current charter,' striking everything after 'version'; the chair declared it passed. [T:231 1716.21–1730.86s: “may we have a vote on the terminology as suggested by Irina”] [T:233 1745.69–1751.499s: “And that's a pass.”]
- The committee accepted the cataloged-practice definition after no comments were raised; the chair declared that the greens had it. [T:287 2156.59–2166.549s: “an entry in the CCNSO shared practice repository with date, contributing structure, and a short description.”] [T:293 2199.98–2201.309s: “Greens have it.”]
- The meeting-setting definition was retained for the time being because only two participants indicated they wanted to strike it. [T:346 2517.54–2523.349s: “only two people indicating a scratch on this. That's not enough to actually scratch it.”] [T:348 2538.7–2545.89s: “I guess the language will stay for the time being”]
- For the CCNSO goals definition, the chair put AJ's published-goals approach against removing the definition; he then declared 'AJ for the win.' [T:371 2677.45–2686.45s: “The ccNSO goals are defined and published in the website.”] [T:375 2721.83–2734.41s: “If you agree with what AJ has suggested, give you a green thumbs up.”] [T:377 2742.89–2744.949s: “And AJ for the win.”]

## Action items

- The chair said he would try to produce better wording overnight for the 'semesterly updates' terminology. [T:75 604.56–617.81s: “I will see if I can come up with a little bit better wordsmithing overnight.”]
- The chair is to take part in a 9 a.m. workshop with the Meeting Programs Committee on the survey process and survey fatigue. [T:444 3320.65–3339.489s: “at 9 o'clock in the morning, the MPC, we're going to be going over and kind of doing a workshop with them.”] [T:447 3359.13–3372.92s: “this becomes an interesting thing in terms of continuous improvement”]

## Open questions

- Whether an 'update' in the semesterly priority record must show substantive progress or can be a documented review with no change. [T:88 706.86–721.179s: “I was wondering what update means.”] [T:90 734.55–746.45s: “Just a new timestamp, or do people have to move something forward?”]
- How 'current' will be measured operationally after removal of the three-year clause, given the separate annual review indicator. [T:206 1538.2–1540.22s: “Current is very subjective.”] [T:225 1675.88–1680.849s: “current would mean yearly.”]
- Whether the retained definitions for meeting setting, alignment with TOR, and 'not found' will remain in the final documentation or be removed. [T:327 2411.42–2417.53s: “we do not need this definition at all.”] [T:385 2804.08–2816.68s: “I'll suggest that we actually cut it, but I'll leave it to Irina and Pablo”]

## Limitations

- No source documents or slides were provided; definitions are captured only as read aloud or described on screen.
- Vote outcomes are based on the chair's declarations; exact tallies, abstentions, and remote votes are often not visible.
- Several speakers are identified only by first name or through shared videoconference audio, and some remarks are unattributed.
- The chair acknowledged difficulty seeing Zoom results and chat, and a participant asked that chat comments be read into the record; not all chat comments appear to have been captured.
- The primary captions and secondary ASR differ on some names and numbers, including 'Irina'/'Arena' and 'TOR'/'Tor'; this summary relies on the primary captions and avoids unsupported specificity.
- Irina's response of 'No' during the newly chartered item is ambiguous, so no vote result is asserted for that definition.

Made by AgentCommunity // Balázs Némethi

## Transcript

[4.6–23.94s] MTS - Video: Hello, and welcome to the CCNSO Guidelines Review Committee session. My name is Claudia Ruiz, and I, along with my colleague, Joke Brecken, are the remote participation managers for this session. Please note, this session is being recorded and is governed by the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct.
[24.45–25.679s] MTS - Video: I don't know what happened.
[27.54–34.72s] MTS - Video: There we go. The ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy.
[34.72–49.05s] MTS - Video: Please observe the following guidelines to participate in this session. They will be posted in the chat for your reference. During the session, questions or comments submitted in chat will be read aloud if put in the proper form, as noted in the chat.
[49.05–60.31s] MTS - Video: If you would like to speak during this session, please raise your hand in Zoom. When called upon, virtual participants will unmute their microphone. On-site participants will use a physical microphone to speak.
[60.52–67.08s] MTS - Video: Please leave your zoom microphones disconnected. If you are here in the room.
[67.29–78.38s] MTS - Video: For the benefit of other participants, please state your name for the record and speak at a reasonable pace. Thank you very much, and with that, I will hand the floor over to Sean Copeland, Chair of the GRC.
[79.55–87.259s] MTS - Video: Thank you so much, Claudia, and welcome everyone to Bali and the October 17th, 2026 edition of the GRC.
[87.5–96.489s] MTS - Video: There's a couple things that we have to go over today, hopefully. And first off, does anybody have an update to their SOI?
[97.81–99.25999999999999s] MTS - Video: Always good news.
[99.33–117.19s] MTS - Video: A little bit of housekeeping. This morning in the Council prep, there was conversation about, our appointment procedures, and this may or may not come to us. We'll find out after Council, on Thursday.
[117.25–128.879s] MTS - Video: If you want to pre-read it, look at section 8.4. Again, it may come to us and it may not. It was a lively discussion though that took place.
[129.18–136.949s] MTS - Video: So, moving on from that, if you're looking at the agenda, we're going to continue on the continuous improvement, implementation.
[137.07–140.35s] MTS - Video: If you want to go to the next slide, Claudia.
[142.86–146.949s] MTS - Video: So Bart, as a last service of of.
[148.39–150.35s] MTS - Video: That's out of whack for my slides.
[150.91–152.03s] MTS - Video: That's okay.
[155.19–160.76s] MTS - Video: Give me a sec. Can you go to… or bring up…
[161.02–163.50900000000001s] MTS - Video: the actual document that Bart did.
[164.56–165.43s] MTS - Video: Thank you.
[167.92000000000002–182.689s] MTS - Video: So just for background, as Claudia is doing that, Barda, as his last act of service to this committee, put together an amalgamation from our final call with him of what the current
[182.89–184.28s] MTS - Video: Progress had been.
[184.39–193.989s] MTS - Video: I shared that with you guys last night. Irina and Pablo will have seen it about a week and a half ago. So we're going to go through that.
[217.9–219.349s] MTS - Video: Yeah, this is the one.
[220.37–222.06s] MTS - Video: Can you guys all read that okay?
[224.16–234.87s] MTS - Video: All right, excellent. When you're looking at this, I want you to consider, if what we have put in here is practical.
[235.26–253.119s] MTS - Video: And I want you to also think about the effort that is involved. We are very well aware that there is change within the CCNSO and the Secretariat, and, you know, we don't want to overburden, but we also want to have a program that is successful.
[253.53–257.09s] MTS - Video: So If you can scroll down, Claudia…
[260.63–262.709s] MTS - Video: So, this shows you…
[263.13–275.539s] MTS - Video: generally what the layout of the document now looks like. This has been a continuation and an evolution of the document that we've been working on for some time. Next page.
[280.63–295.149s] MTS - Video: This here is showing you the results of the work that was done at the last call with Bart. You'll see, of course, the indicators being adjusted. The conversation is that we had is reflected within here.
[295.27–298.079s] MTS - Video: Next page.
[301.19–307.67s] MTS - Video: So, all of this really is about the rationalization of the continuous improvement program.
[308.13–324.299s] MTS - Video: And, you can actually see, if you remember how the document started, they're very, very long. There has been a lot of rationalization, and this should actually make for the workload to be, more efficient, while giving us
[324.77–326.319s] MTS - Video: Hopefully really good results.
[327.5–330.299s] MTS - Video: So next next page part of it.
[331.61–335.219s] MTS - Video: and if I'm going too fast, please please do tell me.
[336.76–341.359s] MTS - Video: I'm very used to having Bart's Dulcet tones go through this?
[342.15999999999997–360.22s] MTS - Video: So, here we start with the final list of indicators, and you'll recall that we decided that Principles 2 and 3 were going to be the test case, and that that would be where Irina and Pablo would put the most effort.
[360.58–362.969s] MTS - Video: So you can see that here.
[366.42–368.69s] MTS - Video: And also went to the next page.
[370.02–381.129s] MTS - Video: And you'll see, of course, the SMART and the SPICE and the binary indicators to those questions. These are all things that we've already pre-decided and have already agreed to at this point.
[382.29–386.399s] MTS - Video: So if you scroll down a little bit more to Section 3,
[389.43–391.499s] MTS - Video: Yeah, right there.
[391.84–393.919s] MTS - Video: Now we're gonna start to do some work.
[394.23–409.419s] MTS - Video: So the last time we were here, we had got to, the well use slash productive, component. You'll see it is marked out in green and related to template F. Claudia, if you slide up a little bit more.
[409.92–416.42s] MTS - Video: So, we're actually going to start now with The terms that are outstanding.
[416.57–424.69s] MTS - Video: And the very first one there is a survey reporting rule that applies to 3.22 and 3.24.
[424.92–436.07s] MTS - Video: And as you can read on the screen, a report… report a result only with at least 8 responses below that pool and mark indicative, meaning that
[436.16–452.1s] MTS - Video: It's not… it's not high confidence, just because it's below 8. Response rate floor, 30%, dropped because attendance is not captured. Basically saying, if we get less than.
[452.2–459.84000000000003s] MTS - Video: 2.5 responses, the survey result is not good enough for us to use. We have no confidence in it.
[461.19–470.02s] MTS - Video: on this one. Open the floor. Let's have a discussion about it before we actually do a vote to say yes or no to the definition.
[476.75–484.33s] MTS - Video: Okay, if there's no comments, then can you guys do a green check on your… Zoom?
[487.35–489.93s] MTS - Video: Or check or thumbs up in the room, yeah.
[492.55–495.79s] MTS - Video: And now I think I'm having the problem that AJ had.
[495.9–499.74s] MTS - Video: earlier today. I can't see the results on my screen. Oh.
[504.99–505.79s] MTS - Video: Oh.
[507.91–508.989s] MTS - Video: Do it that way.
[518.65–519.38s] MTS - Video: Don't know.
[524.79–526.97s] MTS - Video: I'm going to say that the Greens have it.
[528.52–529.2s] MTS - Video: Yep.
[530.35–531.17s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[533.66–534.63s] MTS - Video: All right.
[534.82–538.249s] MTS - Video: We'll make that adjustment to make that as an agreed status.
[538.72–547.439s] MTS - Video: So then we come up to our next one, the semesterly updates. This applies to 3.11. So
[547.74–553.559s] MTS - Video: at least one document update of the priority record in each half of the reporting period.
[553.95–555.75s] MTS - Video: That sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it?
[556.92–559.299s] MTS - Video: What you're looking at here is…
[560.53–564.109s] MTS - Video: semesterly. Did something actually get updated or not?
[565.42–567.17s] MTS - Video: In the reporting period.
[568.64–569.94s] MTS - Video: Go ahead, Pablo.
[574.79–576.12s] MTS - Video: Microphone.
[578.96–586.47s] MTS - Video: Thanks. As I was looking at it, as you said, not only is it a mouthful, but I was trying to understand
[586.68–589.739s] MTS - Video: Exactly what are we talking about here?
[592.08–600.4s] MTS - Video: No, fair enough, fair enough. There's probably a better way to… to express that. I second Paba.
[604.56–617.81s] MTS - Video: Alright. I'll I'll tell you what I will take that, and I will see if I can come up with a little bit better wordsmithing overnight. If that's all right with the rest of you guys, unless you guys want to do it now. Peter Irina.
[618.04–618.99s] MTS - Video: Pablo.
[621.97–635.439s] MTS - Video: Sean, maybe it would be helpful to… to read what the indicator is, so we know what we are referring to, I guess that would land it better. So, the indicator.
[635.54–652.169s] MTS - Video: 3, 1, 1. It's percentage of active structures have a documented priority record updated at least semesterly and accessible to members. So that is the semesterly update we are talking about.
[659.23–661.07s] MTS - Video: That's on page 5, Pablo.
[662.31–663.899s] MTS - Video: What is documented?
[664.07–668.749s] MTS - Video: In one of each of those halves of the semester?
[669.43–673.45s] MTS - Video: How… how would… I'm still lost. Yes.
[675.76–679.3389999999999s] MTS - Video: I think it's… I think it's one each semester, yes.
[683.25–687.44s] MTS - Video: Irina? Semester is how many months?
[692.51–695.3389999999999s] MTS - Video: I feel like we're back in high school.
[697.61–699.62s] MTS - Video: So, Peter, go ahead.
[700.65–706.58s] MTS - Video: Thanks, Sean. This is Peter for the record. Yeah, the semester is, probably planting…
[706.86–721.179s] MTS - Video: certain time spans in people's heads that aren't congruent, but the explanation is clear. I was wondering what update means. Can… is update… does update imply a change, or is it that
[721.96–734.069s] MTS - Video: the committee goes and says, well, no progress. And I understand that the idea is… I assume the idea is to measure progress here, progress reflected by the update.
[734.55–746.45s] MTS - Video: of the document. But again, what's… what's an update? Just a new timestamp, or do people have to move something forward? You know, I live in a compliance world these days, and I get very…
[746.77–750.409s] MTS - Video: ingenious when you… I have to follow those rules.
[752.88–754.079s] MTS - Video: Pablo, go ahead.
[755.06–760.469s] MTS - Video: I would think, as you rightly noted, that ideally.
[760.66–766.559s] MTS - Video: It should be moving the ball forward. Nevertheless, it could be also that
[767.23–775.09s] MTS - Video: In that particular semester, the ball didn't move forward, and all it means is a stamp that, yes, we looked at it.
[775.63–779.299s] MTS - Video: We couldn't move forward, but we did look at it.
[781.35–782.36s] MTS - Video: Aj.
[783.37–789.929s] MTS - Video: Well, looking at the indicator, it's supposed to be on the binary side, like as in
[790.97–801.14s] MTS - Video: Do we have it? Do we not have it? And the update could be no update as well, as seen just that there is a semesterly check.
[801.24–815.02s] MTS - Video: As in, okay, do we need to update our priorities now? Are we on track? And if the response is no, we don't need to update because that's the way we want to continue, that's the update, as in.
[815.32–822.749s] MTS - Video: no need to add anything or to change anything of the current priority. Does that make sense?
[824.71–830.4590000000001s] MTS - Video: Yeah, yeah, thanks. I thought I had strange thoughts, but, it's…
[831.26–835.79s] MTS - Video: I think we have more. There are more people like that. No, that's fine for me. Thank you.
[837.35–843.179s] MTS - Video: Would you guys be comfortable then to actually vote on this as as the language? Or do you want the language adjusted?
[846.57–851.629s] MTS - Video: Can we maybe change the the headline or the whatever you call the 1st column.
[852.8–856.409s] MTS - Video: Just so that semesterly is not confusing people.
[857.54–864.539s] MTS - Video: Sure. Is this something that we could table to Pablo and Irina and your workforce to do?
[869.85–877.42s] MTS - Video: Okay, then we will go ahead and vote on the the term with the understanding that semesterly will be changed to something a little less
[880.16–882.029s] MTS - Video: Meaningful in different ways.
[883.26–886.67s] MTS - Video: So, if you guys could give me your green ticks…
[888.33–890.25s] MTS - Video: Or thumbs up if you're in the room?
[892.62–896.34s] MTS - Video: And any red for people that are disagreeing.
[905.36–907.51s] MTS - Video: And I will say the green checks have it.
[909.11–911.86s] MTS - Video: So, again, to 3.11.
[912.82–916.55s] MTS - Video: Basically, the accessible… accessible to members.
[916.56–936.299s] MTS - Video: This obviously is a binary, position that is either published on the website, so language that's published on the website, or wiki publicly, or behind the member's login, so the information is available to members of the CCNSO. I think this is pretty benign, and that we can probably agree to this, but…
[936.35–938.61s] MTS - Video: Open the floor. Any questions?
[938.82–939.72s] MTS - Video: Comments.
[944.12–945.2s] MTS - Video: All right.
[945.87–951.57s] MTS - Video: Green checks. If you are in favor, red checks, if you are not, or thumbs up if you're in the room.
[959.84–962.399s] MTS - Video: Excellent. We're making really good progress.
[963.26–970.97s] MTS - Video: Next term is current charter. It relates to 2.2 1
[971.82–974.659s] MTS - Video: 2.21 if you were looking in the…
[975.29–982.469s] MTS - Video: Books is 100% of active work groups and committees have a current council-approved charter with a purpose statement and measurable goals.
[983.29–985.45s] MTS - Video: So, measurable goals.
[985.93–990.85s] MTS - Video: means a goal stated with an observable output or result in a timeframe.
[991.23–996.49s] MTS - Video: Any discussion on that? Not Did I skip one?
[997.76–1001.419s] MTS - Video: Okay, I'll come back to current charter. I apologize.
[1003.96–1009.109s] MTS - Video: in terms of the measurable goal. Are we content to go to a vote on that?
[1011.13–1011.88s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[1012.26–1013.889s] MTS - Video: I'll take that as a yes.
[1014.04–1017.54s] MTS - Video: So green checks or thumbs up. Yay.
[1019.96–1021.769s] MTS - Video: And now I'll go backwards.
[1022.06–1025.619s] MTS - Video: And go to current charter, also 2.21.
[1025.849–1037.08s] MTS - Video: Having read you out 2.21, I won't read that out again. The terminology is the latest Council approved version approved or reconfirmed by Council within the last three years.
[1037.91–1042.03s] MTS - Video: For current charter. Does anyone have any discussion on that?
[1042.18–1043.22s] MTS - Video: Aj.
[1044.94–1045.93s] MTS - Video: Bam.
[1046.28–1065.699s] MTS - Video: I know we aim to have reviews of the groups as often as possible, but right now we have charters that are old, and older than 3 years. That doesn't mean that they are not, valid.
[1065.97–1078.509s] MTS - Video: So, to me, the… I don't think we need to put a time limit. As long as they are council approved, that's the… That's the version that counts, doesn't it?
[1083.22–1084.18s] MTS - Video: Irina.
[1085.3–1086.03s] MTS - Video: No.
[1089.83–1095.75s] MTS - Video: Yeah, if the Council hasn't changed its mind or updated.
[1095.86–1099.349s] MTS - Video: By definition, you may say that it's rolled over anyways.
[1100.1–1102.409s] MTS - Video: So, that would still be valid.
[1103.24–1104.69s] MTS - Video: Do you want to speak? Yes.
[1106.05–1108.05s] MTS - Video: Steven Derhick, for the record.
[1108.35–1116.19s] MTS - Video: I don't see… Any reason why charters should, go poof after 3 years?
[1117.08–1122.05s] MTS - Video: If it's an active working group or whatever standing committee or whatever.
[1122.33–1127.92s] MTS - Video: I would organize the priority review such that the older ones get dealt with first.st But
[1128.25–1132.44s] MTS - Video: I don't think they come with an expiry date per se. Thank you.
[1133.17–1149.659s] MTS - Video: So if you look at the terminology that Bart left us, I think the key word there is reconfirmed. So it sort of puts it on to Council to say, this is still… there's no change, but we are reconfirming that this is valid, and I think that actually is a reasonable…
[1149.97–1151.839s] MTS - Video: workload on council.
[1152.81–1154.41s] MTS - Video: my opinion.
[1155.61–1156.72s] MTS - Video: Aj.
[1157.36–1167.97s] MTS - Video: Well, for the Council to reconfirm or not the Charter, definitely it's not necessarily a heavy load, but
[1168.33–1173.95s] MTS - Video: the idea to… Updated charter is because there will be.
[1174.07–1185.919s] MTS - Video: a review, and therefore the Council could say, okay, after a review has happened, nothing has changed, then we reconfirm. But, Who will do the review?
[1187.05–1201.389s] MTS - Video: We are now saying that each group should have an annual preview of their own goals and things, and that could potentially lead to them reviewing their charter and therefore saying, oh, we need to update or not.
[1201.51–1202.54s] MTS - Video: The.
[1203.15–1207.029s] MTS - Video: But are we leaving for the Council to
[1207.33–1210.729s] MTS - Video: Preview all the charters every 3 years.
[1212.29–1213.54s] MTS - Video: That's my question.
[1214.35–1218.899s] MTS - Video: I don't think so. I don't think that's the intent of the line.
[1219.88–1239.559s] MTS - Video: I would actually kind of go the other way. And and we've talked about this in different context. This forces a council member who may not have had the time to review charters of the working groups or committees that are, of course, under the Council to have the opportunity to actually read the document, and that might not be a bad idea.
[1242.0–1256.939s] MTS - Video: No, that's for sure not a bad idea, but if we… the Council will reconfirm, it's because it will be put in the agenda and said, okay, we will reconfirm, so it… But what will trigger that? The fact that
[1257.85–1267.999s] MTS - Video: it had an expiration date, and that we need to read it, or the fact that at that certain point, we will ask the working group, hey, please check your charter. Do you think it needs…
[1268.18–1271.23s] MTS - Video: something to be dealt with? That's what I'm asking.
[1271.62–1290.859s] MTS - Video: I don't think it's a situation where we're saying that the, charter, sorry, the terms of reference have an expiry date. I would suggest that the language implies that if, for example, we did a terms of reference for a committee today, October 17th, 2026.
[1290.86–1301.32s] MTS - Video: then at the next meeting, after October 17, th 2029, it would just automatically come up on Council's calendar.
[1301.4–1306.669s] MTS - Video: As something to reconfirm or not, if something hasn't happened in between.
[1309.04–1309.72s] MTS - Video: Good.
[1311.54–1328.379s] MTS - Video: I think it's a job for Working Group and Committee to review its goals, priorities, and decide whether any adjustments to the Charter are needed. And if they have… did this review and decided there is no need for updates, then it doesn't go for Council.
[1328.96–1335.949s] MTS - Video: That's that's it. So my suggestion is just to say, the latest Council approved version.
[1337.72–1342.25s] MTS - Video: Does anyone else have a comment on the language that Irina has suggested?
[1343.05–1344.16s] MTS - Video: I agree.
[1348.79–1351.45s] MTS - Video: So do I.
[1353.79–1355.93s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[1356.75–1365.67s] MTS - Video: taking Irina's language as replacement language for what is there, and I'm hoping Yoka and Claudia that one of you guys have it noted down.
[1366.56–1372.319s] MTS - Video: that… That will be the language that we vote on.
[1373.56–1376.19s] MTS - Video: Done. Oh, Peter? Yes?
[1377.83–1382.71s] MTS - Video: Yeah, I think we should maintain the time span. It's currently
[1384.7–1396.72s] MTS - Video: So, if it just says the latest council-approved version. Yeah, what? There's a current charter, because it's… if we want the time span. In there, without calling it an expiry.
[1397.08–1404.76s] MTS - Video: because expiry would mean that the charter is no longer valid. It would be valid. It would just be overdue for for reconsideration.
[1405.2–1412.37s] MTS - Video: But I had another question, if I may. That was partly answered already. The so, of course, initially, when the
[1413.54–1422.01s] MTS - Video: group committee, whatever is set up, then the Council is setting the charter. But isn't Isn't it practice…
[1422.25–1429.789s] MTS - Video: that the group itself, and I think Irina went into that direction. The group is the master of their own charter in a way.
[1430.43–1436.159s] MTS - Video: So that's going back to the lot of work for the Council. Maybe not so much.
[1437.68–1442.9s] MTS - Video: But anyway, the point, my point for the language here was
[1443.39–1446.69s] MTS - Video: If we want to say that the charters need to be touched.
[1446.89–1452.82s] MTS - Video: or blessed, or whatever, at least every 3 years, then we need to keep the the time in there. Otherwise the the
[1453.42–1457.609s] MTS - Video: The text on the on the screen and the table doesn't make much sense to me.
[1463.67–1465.27s] MTS - Video: You're not wrong.
[1470.78–1472.899s] MTS - Video: May I? Go ahead.
[1473.53–1485.669s] MTS - Video: So, the indicator is, 100 of active working groups and committees have a current council-approved charter with purpose statements and measurable goals. I think the…
[1486.67–1489.759s] MTS - Video: The key word there is current.
[1489.96–1491.08s] MTS - Video: Like.
[1491.3–1497.87s] MTS - Video: But as long as they have a a Council approved charter.
[1499.41–1506.16s] MTS - Video: with purposes and goals. That's enough like I I don't. I don't see the need to put the time
[1506.59–1508.05s] MTS - Video: Range there.
[1508.76–1512.55s] MTS - Video: like, yes, working groups should
[1513.13–1520.0s] MTS - Video: review their charters, and if they find something that needs to be updated, give it to Council.
[1520.45–1526.65s] MTS - Video: Yes, but I'm I'm not sure if this is the indicator that Ask for this.
[1527.79–1529.04s] MTS - Video: Does that make sense?
[1530.34–1537.15s] MTS - Video: Yeah, it might make sense, and I wish I'm wrong this time, not about this one, about the other…
[1538.2–1540.22s] MTS - Video: Current is very subjective.
[1540.65–1547.73s] MTS - Video: And if you want indicators, they should be a bit more objective. So I'm not going to fight for the 3 years or anything, but
[1548.45–1554.42s] MTS - Video: What this indicator seems to… Help support is that
[1554.69–1559.899s] MTS - Video: the… not the review of the whole group, but a look at the Charter is happening.
[1560.52–1576.65s] MTS - Video: And everybody agrees that it is current, as in reflects what the group does. And we've had examples, I believe, in the recent year where, what was it, the Meeting Programs Committee, where everybody was happy, but the charter wasn't in line with the practice, more or less.
[1577.03–1580.9s] MTS - Video: Then that's okay.
[1582.27–1585.15s] MTS - Video: Irina, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.
[1585.32–1590.419s] MTS - Video: Peter, the next indicator, P2.222.2.
[1590.53–1591.8s] MTS - Video: 2, 2, 2.
[1591.93–1603.79s] MTS - Video: about the necessity of these, regular reviews. You don't see it at the moment on the screen, but if you look in the document a few pages before.
[1603.89–1612.629s] MTS - Video: P222. It's exactly about a formal, regular review of the purpose and goals.
[1612.95–1615.95s] MTS - Video: So it's… it's gonna be happening.
[1617.58–1619.279s] MTS - Video: Yeah, thanks Irina.
[1620.12–1629.62s] MTS - Video: Likely, and I haven't seen this now, likely a very good hint. I'm wondering what this indicator, what value this indicator has.
[1630.22–1634.27s] MTS - Video: If the meat of it is is covered in the other one.
[1634.96–1637.449s] MTS - Video: But again, I'm not going to die in a ditch over that.
[1640.07–1659.379s] MTS - Video: I think if you, again, and I appreciate that you have not looked at that particular language, but Irina, you know, correctly points out that it actually contends with the current terminology. So, in that regard, if you twin 2.21,
[1659.47–1671.369s] MTS - Video: And 2.22 together, then you could go back to the language being without the three years because the current ends up being defined in the, in the subsequent paragraphs.
[1672.07–1674.779s] MTS - Video: Let Pablo go, and then you can go.
[1675.88–1680.849s] MTS - Video: Thank you. So consequently, current would mean yearly.
[1680.97–1685.51s] MTS - Video: according to 2.2.2.
[1685.97–1691.02s] MTS - Video: because that one says that 100% of working groups
[1691.19–1698.54s] MTS - Video: The committees conduct a formal annual review of purpose and goals with documented outcomes.
[1698.97–1704.65s] MTS - Video: So now current will not be subjective, but… It would mean annually.
[1710.72–1715.01s] MTS - Video: You want to respond, Peter. No, let me say I'm not objecting.
[1716.21–1730.86s] MTS - Video: I'm not convinced, but that… let's… let's progress. Sure, okay. Then, may we have a vote on the terminology as suggested by Irina, striking everything after version?
[1731.15–1733.84s] MTS - Video: Green checks or thumbs in the room, please.
[1745.69–1751.499s] MTS - Video: And that's a pass. Thank you, you guys. This brings us now to…
[1751.63–1757.219s] MTS - Video: review mechanism in place related to 2, 3, 1.
[1757.56–1764.19s] MTS - Video: 2, 3, 1 says review mechanism in place. So that's a pretty binary type thing.
[1764.56–1768.309s] MTS - Video: the language that goes with it. Now, looking at it on the screen.
[1769.06–1770.16s] MTS - Video: Do, do, do, do.
[1772.02–1780.919s] MTS - Video: My glasses are not so great. The charter or working methods. The methods say when and how the structure reviews its goals and working methods.
[1782.72–1784.53s] MTS - Video: Is that pretty clear to everyone?
[1789.84–1796.059s] MTS - Video: Okay, I see no hands for questions. So let's oh, no, Irina, you do have a question.
[1800.11–1800.98s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[1805.38–1806.569s] MTS - Video: Go ahead.
[1807.02–1815.66s] MTS - Video: Maybe not only Charter says, but it's actually, this practice, is used, it happens.
[1821.19–1823.599s] MTS - Video: Okay, then let's go for the vote.
[1824.2–1827.84s] MTS - Video: Green checks or thumbs up thumbs down. If you disagree.
[1828.5–1832.149s] MTS - Video: just to I think there are commands in the chat.
[1832.95–1837.65s] MTS - Video: Berry, can you speak again? Yes, I think there are comments in the chat.
[1846.38–1849.769s] MTS - Video: I apologize to people in the chat, Jordan.
[1850.2–1851.5s] MTS - Video: Specifically.
[1860.12–1866.92s] MTS - Video: I'm just having an issue with my, my particular edition of Zoom. Jordan, I will, keep the window open for you.
[1870.57–1877.34s] MTS - Video: And are you wanting to say, then, that we should not be using this as an indicator?
[1881.22–1887.83s] Jordan Carter: Sorry, to be remote when we're actually all in the same place. Can I just speak to this? Yeah.
[1888.92–1889.889s] MTS - Video: Yes, you can.
[1890.65–1904.719s] Jordan Carter: Sorry. My comments were about the other one, the, the council-approved version, the charter thing. So if you don't want to reopen that, that's fine. I just think it isn't an indicator anymore, the way it's written, so…
[1905.06–1908.71s] Jordan Carter: Yeah, but I don't think it's important enough to really get it.
[1909.32–1913.959s] Jordan Carter: I do think it's important that comments in the chat get read into the record. Thanks.
[1915.42–1920.379s] MTS - Video: Again, I apologize for the way my Zoom is opening on my screen.
[1931.97–1932.69s] MTS - Video: document.
[1933.38–1934.579s] MTS - Video: When and how.
[1935.35–1939.04s] MTS - Video: Okay, so now let's look at cataloged practice.
[1939.24–1943.29s] MTS - Video: related to… 2.3.2.
[1945.96–1947.9s] MTS - Video: which is structures best.
[1948.95–1963.43s] MTS - Video: Go ahead, Irina. Sorry, on the review mechanism in place, my point was not, that it is documented, not about that it is written how to review.
[1963.6–1969.919s] MTS - Video: But, it is applied. It is in use.
[1971.07–1972.36s] MTS - Video: this mechanism.
[1989.54–1991.679s] MTS - Video: So what would be the wording? Sorry.
[2000.74–2002.619s] MTS - Video: I don't know at the moment.
[2005.76–2011.459s] MTS - Video: I removed the documented because we said that not in the charter.
[2011.63–2027.2s] MTS - Video: Or the working methods? Well, just remove charter? No, well, my point was not about whether it should be in the charter or not. My point is that even if the charter describes this method.
[2027.3–2032.07s] MTS - Video: But this method has never been used.
[2032.49–2035.13s] MTS - Video: Then it's not in place.
[2036.33–2037.979s] MTS - Video: It's not working.
[2056.27–2057.33s] MTS - Video: 2 plus…
[2061.429–2064.49s] MTS - Video: Is this a situation, Irina, where…
[2068.09–2073.08s] MTS - Video: Because the differentiation is in place, if we know that it's not in place.
[2076.239–2081.84s] MTS - Video: By, well, okay. In the context of their,
[2082.28–2088.849s] MTS - Video: Principle 3. I, it's probably okay.
[2089.4–2094.359s] MTS - Video: So maybe I was wrong with my additions. Sorry.
[2094.639–2104.699s] MTS - Video: Apologies. No, no, not at all. I mean, at the end of the day, when this gets… comes back from Council, you and Pablo are going to be looking at this and will be able to tell us that
[2105.21–2109.739s] MTS - Video: we erred, and we'll be able to correct it. So let's leave it as it is.
[2110.2–2111.12s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[2111.8–2113.93s] MTS - Video: Can we vote on that language?
[2117.08–2123.369s] MTS - Video: thumbs up in the room. Green ticks. If you're happy with it, red checks. If you're not.
[2132.41–2135.39s] MTS - Video: Okay, we can move on to the next one.
[2136.0–2142.94s] MTS - Video: Cataloged practice, which relates to 2.3.2.
[2145.19–2153.38s] MTS - Video: And 2.3.2 basically reads very simply, structured best practices cataloged in a shared repository.
[2156.59–2166.549s] MTS - Video: And the language here on the definition is an entry in the CCNSO shared practice repository with date, contributing structure, and a short description.
[2169.09–2171.5s] MTS - Video: Does anyone have any comments to that?
[2181.73–2188.599s] MTS - Video: I think that we actually have an easy one on this one. Okay, with no comments, raised.
[2188.72–2192.23s] MTS - Video: Green checks. If you agree with it, thumbs up in the room.
[2192.79–2195.599s] MTS - Video: Red marks if you disagree.
[2197.86–2198.88s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[2199.98–2201.309s] MTS - Video: Greens have it.
[2202.44–2208.929s] MTS - Video: Next language is newly chartered. It relates to 3.2.3.
[2209.53–2212.01s] MTS - Video: 3.2.3 reads…
[2213.42–2226.689s] MTS - Video: as 100% of newly chartered working groups, including explicit volunteer time commitment expectations in their charter verified during council charter approval processes. It's a bit of a mouthful, but
[2226.8–2229.019s] MTS - Video: It can be followed, I hope.
[2229.63–2236.939s] MTS - Video: The corresponding language, in terms of the definition, is charter first approved by Council inside the reporting period.
[2237.77–2240.629s] MTS - Video: Are there any questions or concerns?
[2240.96–2242.04s] MTS - Video: to that.
[2248.96–2253.449s] MTS - Video: I see none. Jordan, any thoughts on that? Just checking in.
[2261.16–2266.52s] MTS - Video: Okay, seeing nothing. Can we go to green checks if you agree? Thumbs up in the room.
[2267.82–2268.99s] MTS - Video: Thanks, Jordan.
[2277.72–2278.95s] MTS - Video: Irina?
[2281.17–2282.03s] MTS - Video: No.
[2284.92–2288.38s] MTS - Video: You're no okay or no as in a red mark.
[2290.0–2292.21s] MTS - Video: Okay, alright, cool, thank you.
[2293.85–2294.93s] MTS - Video: Thank you.
[2295.56–2297.32s] MTS - Video: Alright, we're moving along.
[2297.87–2302.84s] MTS - Video: Next terminology is meeting sec… sorry, meeting setting.
[2302.89–2322.02s] MTS - Video: And that's related to 3.2.4. 3.2.4 reads, at least X percentage of post-meeting survey respondents rate the meeting as productive, using anchor scale with examples administered after ICANN face-to-face meetings and quarterly for virtual meetings.
[2322.4–2328.179s] MTS - Video: Create distinction between the meetings during ICANN and other meetings, for example, webinars.
[2328.38–2330.87s] MTS - Video: That's a bit long, I know. Go ahead, Irina.
[2331.82–2337.44s] MTS - Video: Where is meeting settings in this indicator? My apologies.
[2341.03–2346.689s] MTS - Video: That is a good question. In terms of the… the…
[2347.32–2355.369s] MTS - Video: I would look at it as, in one hand, they're in-person meetings, and in another hand, they are virtual meetings, and that would be the distinction of it.
[2355.6–2358.41s] MTS - Video: as I would see it, but I could be very wrong.
[2359.1–2360.06s] MTS - Video: Steven.
[2361.03–2363.66s] MTS - Video: Is there a translation of this available?
[2369.43–2370.739s] MTS - Video: Peter, go ahead.
[2373.95–2381.71s] MTS - Video: I was following up on Stephen, and wondering what… which language the part is that… That doesn't work.
[2384.91–2387.579s] MTS - Video: It's a rather
[2388.33–2395.67s] MTS - Video: impressive run on sentence, and I can't parse it even as a native speaker. Perhaps we should ask Claude and Claude could give us some guidance.
[2398.31–2404.059s] MTS - Video: I actually have one that says, please put this as readable by a person in grade 5.
[2405.77–2409.31s] MTS - Video: It's okay. Irina, go ahead.
[2410.29–2410.99s] MTS - Video: Mmm.
[2411.42–2417.53s] MTS - Video: In my… Personal opinion, we do not need this definition at all.
[2418.25–2421.0s] MTS - Video: And the same relates to the next 3.
[2425.13–2427.829s] MTS - Video: I'm not going to disagree with you.
[2428.63–2432.909s] MTS - Video: However, I don't know if I can do an omnibus vote on these terminologies.
[2434.92–2440.64s] MTS - Video: So… We'll ask on the meeting setting, do we actually need that terminology then?
[2441.61–2451.75s] MTS - Video: And if you think that we still do, or we do give it a green check. If you don't think we do do thumbs down or a red mark.
[2460.83–2463.43s] MTS - Video: Yes, Steven, come on.
[2463.59–2464.35s] MTS - Video: Yep.
[2465.23–2466.699s] MTS - Video: Jordan, go ahead.
[2468.44–2469.87s] Jordan Carter: Thanks, this is sick.
[2470.24–2477.139s] Jordan Carter: Questions? I missed the start of the meeting. Are these… these are the indicators, right? That's what this table is.
[2477.4–2488.49s] MTS - Video: No, this is… this, Jordan, is the definitions that are going to be used consistently, throughout the documentation, so that they're easier to understand.
[2489.55–2494.63s] Jordan Carter: Okay, so wherever we say meeting setting, and the P is the reference to what it's to.
[2494.74–2499.389s] Jordan Carter: The language, the substantive language is what those descriptions might be.
[2500.45–2502.81s] Jordan Carter: So this is consistently used language.
[2504.49–2505.24s] MTS - Video: Correct.
[2505.81–2506.59s] Jordan Carter: Okay.
[2508.88–2510.609s] Jordan Carter: Thanks for the clarification.
[2512.1–2512.88s] MTS - Video: You bet.
[2517.54–2523.349s] MTS - Video: So, there's only two people indicating a scratch on this. That's not enough to actually scratch it.
[2526.67–2528.69s] MTS - Video: Is everyone else abstaining?
[2538.7–2545.89s] MTS - Video: Okay, that's very interesting. I guess the language will stay for the time being, and Irina.
[2546.0–2552.83s] MTS - Video: and Pablo come back to us, I suppose, and determine if this is an issue or not, long term.
[2553.94–2555.599s] MTS - Video: Do you want to go ahead, Irina?
[2556.26–2563.13s] MTS - Video: There is no harm having this language staying. We are just losing time on discussing it.
[2563.33–2564.39s] MTS - Video: Agreed.
[2565.76–2571.869s] MTS - Video: Alignment with Tor. I… Do you want to keep that language? Leave it?
[2572.08–2573.33s] MTS - Video: discuss it.
[2577.19–2587.899s] MTS - Video: Again, in my personal opinion, it's clear enough itself, without any additional explanation, what aligned with Tor is.
[2588.05–2597.78s] MTS - Video: The same relates to ccnso goals. Could there be any like misinterpretation? What ccnso goals is?
[2597.9–2599.49s] MTS - Video: I would hope not.
[2600.49–2602.45s] MTS - Video: Then why we should define it.
[2603.83–2606.519s] MTS - Video: We are not defining every word we use.
[2608.28–2609.11s] MTS - Video: Fair.
[2609.33–2611.069s] MTS - Video: not arguing.
[2612.76–2615.26s] MTS - Video: Nevertheless, we'll do the vote.
[2615.76–2618.09s] MTS - Video: Up, down, abstain.
[2623.68–2625.19s] MTS - Video: We walked forward.
[2625.51–2632.54s] MTS - Video: Hmm! The vote is the vote. The vote is is on the language aligned with aligned with Tor.
[2632.94–2635.13s] MTS - Video: Keep it, leave it.
[2635.57–2636.73s] MTS - Video: Or abstain.
[2642.83–2656.81s] MTS - Video: You want to keep it, you want to keep it, you want to abstain, okay. Again, then we'll refer this to Pablo and Irina to take it out, or keep it as they see fit, in the report backs… back to us.
[2657.87–2662.74s] MTS - Video: To make it easier than the CCNSO goals, which are probably also pretty…
[2664.1–2676.76s] MTS - Video: self-explanatory can also be handled that way. If you guys agree with that, if you don't have a problem with that. And I'm looking specifically at you, Aj. Or Jordan, from the administrative side of the Council.
[2677.45–2686.45s] MTS - Video: The ccNSO goals are defined and published in the website. And those are the ccnso goals. So no other.
[2686.91–2694.619s] MTS - Video: No, I appreciate that. It's just I'm basically doing an omnibus movement on these things, and there's no real structure for that.
[2697.44–2698.74s] MTS - Video: Go ahead, Irina.
[2699.35–2717.82s] MTS - Video: Actually, I insist on, changing or striking this definition, because what this third column says is not a 100% correct interpretation of CCNSO goals. Or just remove it, or change to what Alejandra just said.
[2721.83–2734.41s] MTS - Video: So there's your choice. We remove it, or we do what AJ has suggested. I'll give you this way. If you agree with what AJ has suggested, give you a green thumbs up.
[2734.52–2738.619s] MTS - Video: And if you want to get rid of it, give a red X.
[2742.89–2744.949s] MTS - Video: And AJ for the win.
[2749.04–2754.499s] MTS - Video: Sorry, it's been a long day. Last item, not found.
[2754.84–2758.729s] MTS - Video: I think that one's pretty self-evident,
[2759.29–2764.729s] MTS - Video: Again, in a sense, do we really need this one?
[2765.1–2767.0s] MTS - Video: Irina Pablo
[2770.53–2784.919s] MTS - Video: personally uncomfortable with it not being there. But nevertheless, if you feel… and Jordan, I'm not sure if you're voting on, the goals or the not found at this moment. The vote on not found, if you want to keep it, green.
[2785.16–2790.37s] MTS - Video: Green ticks, if you feel it should be struck, we don't need it. Red.
[2790.84–2793.029s] MTS - Video: And I agree with Irina. By the way.
[2804.08–2816.68s] MTS - Video: People seem very indifferent on this one. I'll suggest that we actually cut it, but I'll leave it to Irina and Pablo to make that official in their process. Yeah, I know, I know.
[2829.33–2838.449s] MTS - Video: Jordan, so you're saying they think it should be clear inside the ccNSO council or operations context, and it could just refer to the published goals? That's reasonable.
[2840.7–2843.349s] MTS - Video: Do you have further comments, Jordan, that you would like to make?
[2850.96–2852.489s] MTS - Video: Aj, for the win.
[2852.6–2855.63s] MTS - Video: Again… Yeah.
[2859.59–2864.639s] MTS - Video: All right, that was the significant part of this particular document.
[2866.14–2875.93s] MTS - Video: knowing that there's been a little bit of change because some of the terminology has come out. Claudia, if you can run to the last page of this.
[2878.53–2880.62s] MTS - Video: Which is a dashboard.
[2884.92–2887.49s] MTS - Video: Or actually, Section 6.
[2892.3–2893.7s] MTS - Video: On page 11.
[2895.29–2905.86s] MTS - Video: There you go. Okay, so… Without having… going through this whole entire process, in… later time.
[2906.41–2922.199s] MTS - Video: what Bart did is he then took the parameters and the questions, including the ones that we struck out, and he basically did a straw exercise against the information that we have within the CCNSO available. And in doing that.
[2922.2–2928.36s] MTS - Video: This is what he determined the current state of…
[2928.79–2937.459s] MTS - Video: how we are fulfilling the goals and objectives of continuous improvement look like.
[2937.47–2949.699s] MTS - Video: Again, some of these things may change because, again, it was a straw test. Doesn't mean that this is the final test or the accurate, it was just to show
[2949.7–2966.3s] MTS - Video: how the information could be utilized. This really becomes a tool for Pablo and Irina to actually work out and come back and show, okay, these are the test items that we actually are using. This is how it actually looks.
[2966.3–2971.1s] MTS - Video: So, because we have adjusted some of the terminology,
[2971.45–2974.0s] MTS - Video: It's best now for us to…
[2974.13–2985.179s] MTS - Video: say, this is the test run based on this criterium. It will be adjusted during the the process, but for Council to have an understanding that this is actually
[2985.4–2994.049s] MTS - Video: what is being envisioned at this moment in time for the presentation of of material to the community.
[2994.59–2996.29s] MTS - Video: Does that make sense to everyone?
[2998.58–2999.75s] MTS - Video: Okay.
[3000.34–3004.049s] MTS - Video: then I think we can actually move on to the next part of our agenda.
[3004.94–3006.58s] MTS - Video: Which is a good thing.
[3007.13–3009.4s] MTS - Video: Do you want to bring up the agenda?
[3009.8–3010.95s] MTS - Video: There, Claudia.
[3012.25–3021.349s] MTS - Video: So we are. I'll talk to number 2, and then we'll get into What time is it?
[3022.32–3024.199s] MTS - Video: What time do we end at Claudia?
[3026.96–3029.96s] MTS - Video: You have 10 minutes left. 10 minutes.
[3031.72–3034.44s] MTS - Video: I don't think we actually have time to really start anything.
[3036.86–3038.12s] MTS - Video: You see.
[3038.78–3042.24s] MTS - Video: Timeline of the CAP, and then the heads up.
[3042.77–3044.09s] MTS - Video: That's enough.
[3047.58–3051.2s] MTS - Video: Okay, yeah, alright, yeah, if you want to bring up the next slide.
[3051.87–3052.78s] MTS - Video: Claudia
[3057.19–3057.89s] MTS - Video: Yeah.
[3058.13–3068.52s] MTS - Video: So This is our ongoing work phases. You'll see that we are now, between Phase 1 and Phase 2.
[3068.66–3086.419s] MTS - Video: Phase 2 is where we start to test the principles. This is going to take the work… this is going to be the primary work around what Irina and Pablo are going to be doing, and looking at the measurements. Now that we've actually sealed out the measurements, yes, Council will have this
[3086.42–3095.239s] MTS - Video: on Thursday, and then by Thursday evening, it should be back to, Pablo and Irina,
[3095.91–3115.3s] MTS - Video: All things aside, in terms of doing this work, the deliverables are pretty, pretty apparent. The results will be available to us, by your next ICANN meeting, perhaps.
[3116.72–3127.59s] MTS - Video: Then we'll move to phase 3, going into next year, and then we'll start to add and adjust the terminology.
[3127.63–3140.359s] MTS - Video: The benefit, of course, will start hopefully being seen in how the continuous improvement program is working for the CCNSO and how we are progressing and of course phase four down the down the road.
[3140.72–3160.25s] MTS - Video: then this stuff is becoming part of how the overall community is working and how we are progressing as a as a entity. And hopefully, the continuous improvement process by then is well established and is providing us a continuous feedback loop that is allowing for our work
[3160.25–3162.1s] MTS - Video: Workflow to be improved.
[3162.1–3178.979s] MTS - Video: And for our membership to actually be, seeing things happen in a reasonable amount of time, versus sometimes waiting years for some of our activities to happen might be, aggressive, might not be. And I'm hoping that it is.
[3179.74–3185.59s] MTS - Video: aggressively enough To be effective, and not overburden everyone involved.
[3187.03–3188.339s] MTS - Video: Aj, go ahead.
[3188.64–3204.219s] MTS - Video: Just a comment. Yes, the Council will be updated on what we discussed today, that it's the refinement of language and everything, but the framework has been already approved, so there's nothing stopping the work from
[3206.1–3213.939s] MTS - Video: from actually starting to happen. This was like the last Polish? On… on…
[3214.46–3223.6s] MTS - Video: On… on the tools that will be used to gather the information. So, just… to do that clarification.
[3233.1–3235.06s] MTS - Video: Can you bring back up the agenda?
[3236.54–3237.75s] MTS - Video: Oh, sorry.
[3240.22–3258.81s] MTS - Video: Thanks, Christian Wheeler, ICANN Org. I just wanted to clarify, too, that for the very last deliverable in Phase 4, the final evaluation, the CIP framework kind of considers that as, like, the progress report that would be going up, published for public comment. So, I just wanted to clarify that that's…
[3258.93–3268.43s] MTS - Video: I think was what Rose referred to as for the final evaluation. And also wanted to note that any improvements that are identified during
[3268.43–3279.9s] MTS - Video: the kind of phase 2, or I guess phase 2 and phase 3 of this. Not every improvement needs to be implemented as far as part of that evaluation or progress report.
[3279.9–3291.69s] MTS - Video: Bearing in mind that CIP is meant to be continuous, and so it's really just a kind of a touch base to see where it's at, where CCNSO is at in its framework. And.
[3291.84–3307.47s] MTS - Video: the improvements that it's made and checking out the data to see if those have actually yielded results that were intended. But just wanted to flag that it's not expected that ccNSO implement everything that is that it identified as a potential improvement. Thanks.
[3308.47–3318.509s] MTS - Video: Thank you for that, and yeah, it would be an awful lot to fully implement across the board, all the things that we've thought about over the last year, year or two.
[3319.3–3320.31s] MTS - Video: So…
[3320.65–3339.489s] MTS - Video: You want to speak? No. Okay, so tomorrow, in terms of the heads up, at 9 o'clock in the morning, the MPC, we're going to be going over and kind of doing a workshop with them. They've asked me to be involved in.
[3340.03–3354.699s] MTS - Video: looking at the survey process that they do, and how they are received, and the validity of the information that is being received, just because there's a bit of a sense of… of…
[3355.1–3359.069s] MTS - Video: Call it survey fatigue.
[3359.13–3372.92s] MTS - Video: And this becomes an interesting thing in terms of continuous improvement and how we can help, from the GRC's perspective, help a committee, especially this committee, to…
[3372.92–3383.22s] MTS - Video: reach out to the membership and have an effective, you know, an effective way to to capture information that is valuable to the community.
[3383.62–3385.8s] MTS - Video: So that we will be doing tomorrow.
[3385.93–3389.129s] MTS - Video: in the morning. If you are willing to participate.
[3395.13–3397.119s] MTS - Video: I believe it's gonna be here, yeah.
[3400.4–3402.39s] MTS - Video: All right. Confirmed.
[3404.3–3408.519s] MTS - Video: Is there any other business from anyone at the floor, or online?
[3411.13–3412.06s] MTS - Video: Nope.
[3412.56–3419.76s] MTS - Video: All right, you guys, enjoy the rest of your time in Bali. It was great to see you all, and good evening, good night.
[3420.34–3421.26s] MTS - Video: Cheers.

Made by AgentCommunity // Balázs Némethi