# RSSAC Work Session (1 of 3)

Session ID: icann87-sched-2Wjfy
Source session ID: 2Wjfy
Official source: https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjfy/rssac-work-session-1-of-3

## Generated summary

# RSSAC Work Session (1 of 3): Continuous Improvement Program

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

RSSAC reviewed its draft Continuous Improvement Program criteria and indicators, questioning measurement burden, mission relevance and the balance between numerical activity counts and qualitative outcomes. A Work Stream 2 update explored incorporating diversity surveys into CIP, with concerns about applicability, privacy and targets. The discussion closed with a request for comments in the working document and a tentative next-call announcement. [T:28 244.6–261.58s: “or measuring points, measuring data points we might have. This is in no way a fixed document. I expect that it would be a living document and could be matured as we move along this process.”] [T:117 1192.79–1198.959s: “So mapping it to to the mission is crucial to me. That's where we need to measure”] [T:141 1435.77–1450.369s: “80 plus numbers, right? I think that is, order of magnitude too high. How can we measure success with identifying, let's say, 3 indicators for each of these principles?”] [T:479 4250.8–4267.33s: “ICANN has been very good at measuring effort. We need to measure outcomes. So anything that's effort-based, we could basically strike from the list and look for how do we measure outcome. So number of meetings or number of reports, that's kind of eff”] [T:219 2146.05–2153.03s: “And it was suggested that we could potentially fold these into some of the continuous improvement program recommendations.”] [T:341 3197.27–3210.339s: “But my point there is that under certain countries' privacy laws, you need to have a ground for collecting that data. And I don't see how we have the grounds to collect that. Therefore, we can't even ask it.”] [T:414 3718.22–3733.029s: “What's the goal? What's the target? Right? Is the target as Norwegian board again, you by law have to have at least 30% members of the board of either gender. Do we want to, you know, is that the target?”] [T:482 4288.1–4302.759s: “Yeah, I thank everyone for the participation and looking forward to your comments in the document directly. So all those some of those that, for example, you you in said about quality versus quantity.”] [T:485 4318.09–4332.29s: “Participation, thank you. And we are highlighting for our next call right now, we are looking at November 2nd, Monday, November 2nd. I believe that will be at 16 UTC with the time zone shift?”]

## TL;DR

- Members urged a smaller, useful indicator set tied to RSSAC’s advisory mission, rather than counting activity without evaluating its value. [T:108 1134.57–1145.48s: “Or, or possibly and, to have these more clearly mapped to the mission and remit of RSAC.”] [T:117 1192.79–1198.959s: “So mapping it to to the mission is crucial to me. That's where we need to measure”] [T:141 1435.77–1450.369s: “80 plus numbers, right? I think that is, order of magnitude too high. How can we measure success with identifying, let's say, 3 indicators for each of these principles?”] [T:479 4250.8–4267.33s: “ICANN has been very good at measuring effort. We need to measure outcomes. So anything that's effort-based, we could basically strike from the list and look for how do we measure outcome. So number of meetings or number of reports, that's kind of eff”]
- Staff described flexibility in the first CIP cycle and possible reuse of existing diversity surveys; privacy and the relevance of diversity measures remained contested. [T:190 1882.77–1902.13s: “I understand, you know, the need for flexibility. That is kind of the goal of the CIP framework, is so that each SOAC has some flexibility while still having an overall framework by which all of the SOACs can be looked at when looking holistically ab”] [T:261 2448.85–2460.409s: “Bearing in mind that you don't want to have too many indicators and be overwhelmed with too much stuff. So, as a reminder, too, the CIP is, right now, is the first cycle. It's very much a pilot.”] [T:287 2684.57–2701.619s: “whatever diversity elements are applicable to you. So there are two surveys drafted. You could combine them into one, or you could do them separately. It doesn't… it's not required that you do two. It's just that a survey that's basically in line wit”] [T:335 3101.62–3121.339s: “comment on that. This is Naveed. I think one of the idea of work stream to recommendation, this recommendation is that it mandates each SOAC to identify which aspects are relevant to them, and not to incorporate all of them.”] [T:341 3197.27–3210.339s: “But my point there is that under certain countries' privacy laws, you need to have a ground for collecting that data. And I don't see how we have the grounds to collect that. Therefore, we can't even ask it.”]
- The chair aimed for agreement on criteria and indicators in three to four months, distinguished later implementation planning, and asked members to comment directly in the draft. [T:451 4048.87–4060.909s: “Yeah, I think. 3 months to 4 months we should be done with, maybe before the next ICANN meeting, or by the next ICANN meeting we should have some some”] [T:454 4078.95–4097.999s: “right and say that, okay for a pilot, we would go for that. But that's II think, in the in the working party document. It's not mentioned that one. So our remit as of now would just be to to fix those and identify those criteria and indicators.”] [T:482 4288.1–4302.759s: “Yeah, I thank everyone for the participation and looking forward to your comments in the document directly. So all those some of those that, for example, you you in said about quality versus quantity.”]

## Main discussion

- The working document is a living starting point. The chair proposed systematic data collection, evaluation and action, with SMART indicators where practical and room for subjective assessment. [T:28 244.6–261.58s: “or measuring points, measuring data points we might have. This is in no way a fixed document. I expect that it would be a living document and could be matured as we move along this process.”] [T:37 384.44–401.55899999999997s: “So I try to see how people do this process, or follow this process, and these are the six steps in the cycle that I identified, right? So, that is, first, you collect data.”] [T:39 406.8–430.16s: “So you evaluate your data, that's the fourth step. You decide what to, what and how to post-process that data. And finally, you took action based on the decisions that you have, and you come back to the start of the cycle, right? So this is how the p”] [T:40 431.34–450.269s: “So if we talk about the measuring points in the process, right? So measuring or data collection points could be our smart indicators. As we have discussed previously, they should be specific, they should be measurable.”] [T:42 451.96–476.84000000000003s: “They should be relevant to RSAC and they should be time bound means they could be achievable within a specific time. But in the process we can see that maybe not all of them can be that much specific or that much measurable, right? So we can also go ”] [T:43 476.84000000000003–492.28s: “of a survey that we hold, or what's the outcome of a particular session, or in the long run, what was the outcome of the actions that RSAC has taken over the months, or over the years, over the quarters?”]
- One participant sought at most about 15 indicators overall. The chair distinguished criteria from indicators and anticipated that some criteria could need more than one indicator. [T:154 1577.09–1585.159s: “So, I think you misunderstood me. I was aiming for a maximum of 15 indicators, not 15 per principles.”] [T:155 1586.32–1600.23s: “Yeah, I I get you. But what I'm saying is the document CIPCCG document right, which is already in place mandates that we should have at least 3 criteria per principal.”] [T:156 1600.23–1615.139s: “right? If you decide to measure one criteria by one indicator, then you can have 15 right? But if there would be some criteria that would require more than one. So I I don't see that we will end up having”]
- Christian Wheeler recommended manageable scoping, useful data and realistic collection effort, warning against indicators becoming a checkbox exercise. [T:186 1858.77–1861.2s: “Thank you. Christian Wheeler from ICANN Org.”] [T:193 1916.89–1927.989s: “Phase 1 is where, which is where you guys are right now, is the most important, I would say, in terms of scoping and making sure that the indicators and criteria are manageable.”] [T:196 1941.52–1958.0s: “and how well it is applicable to what RSAC needs in terms of looking at its efficiencies and improvements to be made. So, I would suggest not having indicators, just for having indicators' sake, you know, having the… for the minimum 3.”] [T:197 1958.0–1967.749s: “If that can be achieved in less, that is… that can be done. I would recommend not abusing that, as far as just having a… becoming a checkbox exercise.”] [T:199 1980.45–1995.57s: “tons of indicators of all of a wish list of everything that they want to see, not all of which is actually possible to gather or would take a lot of manual work or updates to the ICANN Org staff's daily tasks when it comes to”]
- Staff presented diversity-survey templates as a possible source of CIP data and said a first-cycle progress report was due in July 2028; improvements need not all be completed by then. [T:250 2351.06–2369.96s: “Which has… a template has already been drafted by staff. It would just need to be sent, and obviously amended some of the questions if needed. And then point four is publishing it and coming up with some kind of, objectives to increase diversity if n”] [T:254 2388.8–2408.359s: “this is already a good source of data that could be used, whether it's for principle, you know, 4 or 5, there could be some overlap as far as being accountable internally to stakeholders and substructures, or fulfilling the mission of ICANN, that sor”] [T:272 2531.97–2542.089s: “For at least for this first cycle, which ends this first three-year CIP cycle, which ends July 2028, is when a progress report would need to be published.”] [T:278 2580.68–2595.3s: “this is what we have to date, these are the improvements that we've identified and prioritized, and these are where we're at with the ones that we've prioritized. It doesn't… you don't need to complete all the improvements. You can say we've, you kno”] [T:279 2595.3–2612.2s: “And for the next cycle, we'll focus on the next three, or what have you. So it is flexible, and it is not meant to be something that you need to complete everything by July 2028. It is just kind of a point in time, just to make sure that everyone is ”]
- Members distinguished RSSAC’s operator-appointed membership from the more open Caucus and questioned what practical diversity targets would mean. [T:292 2762.59–2778.049s: “For RSAC, it's much more difficult because we're appointed by our own serving organizations. And, you know, if we're going to introduce gender diversity, then, well, half of us will have to go home and change to one of our female colleagues.”] [T:296 2796.69–2807.15s: “Yeah. So mapping it out and having it survey and reporting on it. Sure. But then once we have those numbers, what do we want to do with them? Big question mark.”] [T:297 2807.84–2827.66s: “RSAC caucus, or we could make a drive to… I think we identify some regions that we lack participation for, so we could do outreach there. And there may be other diversity factors that could also be, you know, interesting to think about. That may mean”] [T:414 3718.22–3733.029s: “What's the goal? What's the target? Right? Is the target as Norwegian board again, you by law have to have at least 30% members of the board of either gender. Do we want to, you know, is that the target?”]
- The staff survey example included consent, anonymization, optional disclosure and questions about participation-related accessibility needs. Members also questioned whether collecting sensitive data had a lawful basis. [T:341 3197.27–3210.339s: “But my point there is that under certain countries' privacy laws, you need to have a ground for collecting that data. And I don't see how we have the grounds to collect that. Therefore, we can't even ask it.”] [T:399 3609.33–3617.709s: “Providing consent to process personal data, and the anonymization of the survey results for if it were to be published.”] [T:401 3622.59–3629.59s: “Do you have any physical disabilities or accessibility needs that are relevant to your participation in ICANN? Yes, no, prefer not to say.”] [T:402 3630.26–3636.16s: “And if yes, what accessibility needs do you have that are relevant to your participation?”] [T:403 3636.36–3640.329s: “And how well are these accessibility needs being met? A scale of 0 to 5.”]

## Disagreements

- Participants differed over whether the seven diversity elements should all remain a starting point or be narrowed to aspects relevant to RSSAC. [T:335 3101.62–3121.339s: “comment on that. This is Naveed. I think one of the idea of work stream to recommendation, this recommendation is that it mandates each SOAC to identify which aspects are relevant to them, and not to incorporate all of them.”] [T:342 3210.42–3223.28s: “and store it in a volunteer basis. And the text here says that the ASO/AC groups should agree that the following seven elements of diversity should be used as a common starting point.”] [T:343 3223.48–3235.83s: “for all diversity considerations. So I read at least two shoulds in that sentence, so I find it difficult to, as a starting point, eliminate any of them. It sounds more like we should add more.”] [T:344 3237.49–3261.42s: “1.2 actually says that you need to identify which are relevant to the to you, for instance, and I did it that way. So of course, I think 7 are part of the diversity, and this is what they they say. And then they say that, okay, you identify which wer”]
- Some speakers favored fewer qualitative indicators; another questioned how measurement without numbers would work. [T:473 4201.11–4205.91s: “quantitative, right? I think we should have fewer indicators, and they should be qualitative.”] [T:474 4206.12–4219.99s: “So the goal doesn't have to be a hard number, because then you usually get into that the number should be higher or lower, it should be zero or a gazillion, right? But usually, we need some qualitative good enough measure.”] [T:477 4233.11–4242.489s: “So… I'm not sure I understand how you can measure something without numbers, but we can have that discussion.”]

## Outcomes

- The next call was tentatively announced for Monday, November 2, with 16 UTC mentioned subject to the time-zone shift and a calendar invitation to follow. [T:485 4318.09–4332.29s: “Participation, thank you. And we are highlighting for our next call right now, we are looking at November 2nd, Monday, November 2nd. I believe that will be at 16 UTC with the time zone shift?”] [T:486 4332.85–4335.589s: “So, keep an eye out for a calendar invite.”]

## Possible follow-ups (inferred)

- Review the criteria before indicators, combine or remove weak entries, and try easier principle–criterion pairs first. [T:460 4141.33–4146.09s: “If we were to just look at the criteria without any indicators, just the criteria.”] [T:462 4150.029–4154.759s: “Are there any things that are missing? Any things that can be thrown away or combined?”] [T:465 4162.0–4167.399s: “principal criteria pairs that have an existing set of of indicators.”] [T:466 4167.75–4172.289s: “Look through that, and, you know, let's… let's try… let's try the easy ones first.”]

## Action items

- Members were asked to put comments, including quality-versus-quantity concerns, directly into the working document. [T:482 4288.1–4302.759s: “Yeah, I thank everyone for the participation and looking forward to your comments in the document directly. So all those some of those that, for example, you you in said about quality versus quantity.”] [T:483 4302.76–4309.66s: “Please put those as as a starting point in the document, and we can”]

## Open questions

- Which indicators best measure RSSAC outcomes, and what counts as a good result? [T:106 1122.28–1128.27s: “I either… Also, a column for how these are to be evaluated.”] [T:107 1129.41–1132.4s: “These numbers. What's a good number, and what's a bad number?”] [T:479 4250.8–4267.33s: “ICANN has been very good at measuring effort. We need to measure outcomes. So anything that's effort-based, we could basically strike from the list and look for how do we measure outcome. So number of meetings or number of reports, that's kind of eff”] [T:480 4268.16–4272.829s: “It's the outcome. And how on earth do we measure that? That's the really difficult part.”]
- Who approves the final document, and does implementation planning belong to this work party? [T:448 4029.49–4036.619s: “And are we the ones approving it, or should someone else approve it? Are you asking for the… are the initial indicators for the CIP?”] [T:58 706.61–725.319s: “Whether this is the remit of that, this working party or there's another working party needed for that, that comes up with the implementation plan of those recommendations that this outcome of this working party might have.”]

## Limitations

- Unofficial AI summary reviewed by a Codex agent against the supplied corrected transcript; not an official record or human review.
- Caption recognition errors and generic speaker labels limit precise name attribution. Statements about external policies and technical deployment are reported as session discussion, not independently verified facts.

Made by AgentCommunity // Balázs Némethi

## Transcript

[2.83–11.979s] MTS - A/V: Hey, everyone, and welcome to the first RSAC session for ICANN 87. This is the Continuous Improvement Program Work Party session.
[12.25–14.32s] MTS - A/V: This call is recorded.
[14.44–16.12s] MTS - A/V: And,
[16.28–31.889s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, the call is recorded, and this is governed by the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct, the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior, and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policies. Please observe the following guidelines to participate in this session. I will also post them in the chat for your reference. This session is for RSAC members.
[31.89–33.67s] Jeff Osborn: And they're inviting guests to that.
[33.67–34.78s] MTS - A/V: Lead for this meeting.
[35.17–41.059s] MTS - A/V: But, you know, observers are open, for ICANN 87, and at the table, they're totally welcome.
[41.32–52.729s] MTS - A/V: If you wish to speak, please raise your hand in the Zoom room, or otherwise directed by the chair. When speaking, please state your name for the record, and speak clearly at a moderate pace. I will now hand the floor over to Naveed.
[56.9–59.449s] MTS - A/V: Yeah. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon.
[59.93–67.44s] MTS - A/V: Thank you, Daniel. So we today's agenda would be to
[67.55–70.76s] MTS - A/V: To discuss the working document that,
[71.15–74.58s] MTS - A/V: We have that we have as a base point for.
[74.64–82.66s] MTS - A/V: For this CIP working party. So in we already have 2 calls.
[82.69–93.84s] MTS - A/V: On, on, on this working party. And, in the last working party, we, we, agreed, to…
[93.84–102.919s] MTS - A/V: to start deliberating on the document, the base document that we already have, which provides the
[102.92–120.41s] MTS - A/V: the base of the principles that are fixed for this process, and plus it provides a number of exemplary criteria, as well as the indicators. And just as a recall, the indicators are what we, look for.
[120.44–134.579s] MTS - A/V: to measure at the end. And we have to devise this mechanism in a way that they can be achievable and measurable at the end. All right, so that's the main perspective of that.
[134.58–148.559s] MTS - A/V: So we can directly, I think, jump in. Yeah. Before that, this is a work ready call. So I'm going to do a quick roll call. In the room now we have Duane Wessels, we have Lars-Jo Hohn-Meet-Liman, we have Ken Renard, Frederick Lindberg.
[148.62–158.199s] MTS - A/V: Jeff Osborn, Hunter Holan, Hero Hota, Wes Hardaker's in the room, and online from the RSAC, Afshan Abdul, Brad Bird.
[159.31–160.66s] MTS - A/V: Peter Martin.
[162.29–168.549s] MTS - A/V: and our chair is Naveed. So, Naveed, I will pass it back to you, and we'll get into the content.
[170.27–178.369s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, thank you, Daniel, again. So we have a working document, if we can directly open that, and we.
[178.37–191.84s] MTS - A/V: start over that document and, see where we go. So all the members, I are invited to put their comments on that, and that's.
[191.84–197.24s] MTS - A/V: Since that's a work in progress, so the call stands as it is.
[197.24–210.00900000000001s] MTS - A/V: So during this session or after that, if you have any comment to make on any of the criteria or indicators, please feel free to add that.
[210.01–234.899s] MTS - A/V: Right. So this is, as a, recall or as a reference, this document is what we, developed along with, some of the volunteers from RSSAC, when we were, doing the process, as a CIPCCG, right. So we presented to them an exemplary document.
[234.9–237.469s] MTS - A/V: Of what kind of processes we have.
[237.47–244.599s] MTS - A/V: And how can we measure them? And if we measure them, what kind of kind of indicators
[244.6–261.58s] MTS - A/V: or measuring points, measuring data points we might have. This is in no way a fixed document. I expect that it would be a living document and could be matured as we move along this process.
[261.62–284.159s] MTS - A/V: Right? So we can go over all those, or some of those measuring points in today's session, and I can open the floor for discussion for all of these, right? But before I move on to those, the document is shared in the
[284.15999999999997–303.19s] MTS - A/V: in the draft agenda, but Daniel can share that in the chat as well. If you can go to the right, to the last page of this document, because I added some of the, you know, thoughts that I have
[303.19–312.32s] MTS - A/V: for this process, and that could be a good starting point of discussion as well. Daniel, are you controlling this document? Okay.
[315.02–320.86s] MTS - A/V: I think it's in the last page I added some of the thoughts that… yeah, this one, right?
[320.91–344.90999999999997s] MTS - A/V: So, so, if, you see that, I, I just tried to, write down a few points of how I understand this process and what I, my experiences and learning, as, being part of the, the CIPCCD earlier, right? So we look for collecting, data, measuring data.
[344.90999999999997–360.399s] MTS - A/V: then evaluating that data right? And eventually putting that in a cyclic process where we can achieve a continuous improvement. Right? So the the system has to be memory based.
[360.45–366.499s] MTS - A/V: Means we consider what has happened in the past in order to.
[366.78–384.44s] MTS - A/V: you know, to, to see where do we stand, next, right? So we, we go towards a systematic data collection as well as a systematic outcome assessment of those data points as part of this, this process.
[384.44–401.55899999999997s] MTS - A/V: So I try to see how people do this process, or follow this process, and these are the six steps in the cycle that I identified, right? So, that is, first, you collect data.
[401.56–406.8s] MTS - A/V: Then you keep monitoring your collection, right? You measure them, right?
[406.8–430.16s] MTS - A/V: So you evaluate your data, that's the fourth step. You decide what to, what and how to post-process that data. And finally, you took action based on the decisions that you have, and you come back to the start of the cycle, right? So this is how the process would look like, right?
[431.34–450.269s] MTS - A/V: So if we talk about the measuring points in the process, right? So measuring or data collection points could be our smart indicators. As we have discussed previously, they should be specific, they should be measurable.
[450.27–451.96s] MTS - A/V: It should be achievable.
[451.96–476.84000000000003s] MTS - A/V: They should be relevant to RSAC and they should be time bound means they could be achievable within a specific time. But in the process we can see that maybe not all of them can be that much specific or that much measurable, right? So we can also go towards the subjective kind of outcomes, like what is the feeling of a patient?
[476.84000000000003–492.28s] MTS - A/V: of a survey that we hold, or what's the outcome of a particular session, or in the long run, what was the outcome of the actions that RSAC has taken over the months, or over the years, over the quarters?
[492.28–515.21s] MTS - A/V: Right? So we can identify some measurement methods like how the data should be collected. It could be surveys, right? Part of annual survey that we already do, but along with that, some session-based survey that we perform, for example.
[515.21–524.19s] MTS - A/V: Right? So how you measure the the sense of the success of a session.
[525.2–549.629s] MTS - A/V: Right? Maybe the the consensus between the Rsos about something route. What is the feeling of that? Right? How do you evaluate the the consensus between root server operators? Eventually that is feeding into the RSSAC right? The advisory review or updates about those how frequently we are updating and reviewing our process.
[549.63–553.33s] MTS - A/V: That would be one of the points.
[553.33–573.819s] MTS - A/V: Right? The outcomes of the working group, right? So what, is the overall feeling or the process that we follow, and how we are improving our processes for participation in the working group, for contribution to those working groups, and how successful are they, for example?
[574.95–598.24s] MTS - A/V: And the review of the quarterly or annually defined goals by RSAC. So it could be short-term goals that we define quarterly-based or annual-based, right? It could be a 3-year base, so there could be different things that we can consider, right? So, we need to define some kind of benchmarks that the threshold that we would like to
[598.24–603.319s] MTS - A/V: achieve going forward when we have such kind of indicators and we discuss them.
[603.32–627.449s] MTS - A/V: And maybe the prioritization and weightage of each of these indicators that could potentially contribute to the criteria, right? And similarly, the weightage and priority of some criteria that could feed into the principles. So it's…
[627.45–630.11s] MTS - A/V: For us as a group to decide.
[630.11–654.11s] MTS - A/V: how much weightage or priority we would like to give to a particular indicator, right? So that's completely on us to decide how to proceed with that. In the start, we can consider only specific or subset of indicators or criteria to contribute, and we might say that something is 50% and the other is 30%.
[654.11–656.87s] MTS - A/V: Contributing and things like that.
[658.24–671.44s] MTS - A/V: Right? So so the objectives of this working party. One of the objectives is to develop the consensus based indicators which are adopted, which are balanced.
[671.44–681.909s] MTS - A/V: Which can be integrated into regular operations easily without having too much, burden on RSAC or without having to change a lot of processes.
[681.91–706.61s] MTS - A/V: And should be… they should be memory-based for constructive and continuous improvement, right? So, and then the final point is about the, phase-wise implementation of that. That was part of the… our discussion in the last call as well. Like, once we agreed as a working party, like, these are kind of indicators that we have, then the next step would be, and we are not sure
[706.61–725.319s] MTS - A/V: Whether this is the remit of that, this working party or there's another working party needed for that, that comes up with the implementation plan of those recommendations that this outcome of this working party might have.
[725.33–750.029s] MTS - A/V: So I just wanted to share these thoughts. They are not part of this document, but we can let it here if somebody wants to comment on that. But eventually, I just put them as to share with everybody, and I open the floor for anybody who has any feedback or comment of what I said or what I did.
[750.03–752.38s] MTS - A/V: What my thoughts are in this,
[752.43–754.66s] MTS - A/V: In in this page. Thank you.
[762.31–768.859s] MTS - A/V: Naveed. First, st I'd like to say, thank you so much for the work you put into this. It's
[769.2–773.94s] MTS - A/V: It's a tremendous effort, and it really really shows. And
[775.47–778.429s] MTS - A/V: I came in here with a couple of concerns.
[778.65–784.96s] MTS - A/V: that were just ameliorated by reading through the work you've already done.
[785.82–789.08s] MTS - A/V: I'm re. I'm really impressed with how
[789.84–795.18s] MTS - A/V: You skipped what would have been a really easy mistake to make, where the…
[795.32–799.909s] MTS - A/V: The task of the RSAC is advice.
[800.4–812.579s] MTS - A/V: to the community and the board, and so many people get that confused so easily with the operational things that Route Ops does. And this is entirely an advisory group.
[812.6–829.189s] MTS - A/V: So I had lunch and was talking with my colleague Hans Petter here, and he was talking about, holy crap, there's just so many numbers of things. And I thought, I'll bet you anything it fell into how many root servers does it take to pile up a whatever and how many responses.
[830.32–843.67s] MTS - A/V: And I can't figure out how you kept in the lane so well, but just I'm really impressed. I'm glad I wouldn't have to be the one to answer all these questions because a bunch of it is very detailed.
[843.9–848.79s] MTS - A/V: But… Again, I'm really impressed having read through that, that you
[849.06–852.889s] MTS - A/V: Got the assignment right, and did what, you know.
[853.21–856.349s] MTS - A/V: Had to be done. So, well done, good job.
[856.69–870.19s] MTS - A/V: Appreciate it. If nobody else has read the whole thing, I suspect other people might have feared what I was fearing, where this would have been really easy to fall into a bunch of questions about operational things. And it is, unless I missed a point.
[870.38–875.09s] MTS - A/V: It is really, really just entirely, the
[875.89–880.01s] MTS - A/V: part that you're gonna have to handle from now on, so this is your problem.
[881.16–885.66s] MTS - A/V: Having said that, I wonder whether it couldn't be.
[886.05–892.659s] MTS - A/V: condensed without harming how effective it looked like we were. The…
[894.24–897.98s] MTS - A/V: ICANN is certainly prey to the thing of, nice job, it's long.
[898.11–908.74s] MTS - A/V: And you know, the problem with long is, if it's something you're going to have to fill out later, somebody is going to dread doing this in about 3 years or 5 years or 10 years, because Jesus Christ, it's so long.
[909.84–919.68s] MTS - A/V: What is your opinion on the ability to sort of make this more terse without harming how effective it looks to the rest of the organization? Is that a fair question?
[920.76–939.809s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, thank you, thank you. Actually, One of the discussions we had in last working party session was that it is our choice as a group, RSAC, that we may
[939.92–949.0s] MTS - A/V: Start it as a pilot project, and work on a subset of criteria and indicators, and even a subset of principles.
[949.0–972.17s] MTS - A/V: For example, we say that, okay, you give us five principles to measure, but we would like to see how one or two principles would go with RSAC, right? And we will choose some kind of subset and some of criteria that measure them eventually through indicators, right? And once we are successful in doing that, then we are going to expand that and to see how we can incorporate that, right?
[972.17–981.74s] MTS - A/V: So the second thing is, the whole cip process is actually composed of 6 years. Right? It it has 3
[981.74–993.81s] MTS - A/V: 2 cycles of 3 years each right? And you may be collecting data because that 3 years has 3 phases, but often confused with 3 years.
[993.81–1012.14s] MTS - A/V: one year each, but it's not like this. It is, like, you might be collecting data for 2 years, right, or more than 2 years, and then you need to just analyze that and publish a report that could feed into the next cycle. But unless you complete 2 full cycles of 3 years, which is total 6 years.
[1012.14–1014.36s] MTS - A/V: Right? Only then you…
[1014.36–1020.9s] MTS - A/V: can decide on how things are going. Not before that. Right? So this is the the main purpose of cip.
[1021.79–1028.449s] MTS - A/V: But just to be clear, are you saying, then, that a subset of the 5 with some subset of
[1028.73–1031.39s] MTS - A/V: Questions to them. We could,
[1031.96–1034.269s] MTS - A/V: Collect data for two years, put together
[1034.39–1039.209s] MTS - A/V: Twice, without having to add back in or change what those were.
[1039.78–1058.789s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, well, unless we measure all 5 of them, we can't say that we completed the CIP process, per se. But what I was suggesting is that maybe for, I mean, nobody's pushing us to start right away measuring everything, so we can measure, the first
[1058.88–1062.09s] MTS - A/V: as one or 2 principles.
[1062.1–1084.179s] MTS - A/V: and for one year or something right? And then we start the process itself for for that 6 year period, right where we we say that now we are comfortable with that. But eventually, once we you start the cycle of 3 years 1st cycle, which is composed of 3 years. You have to measure all 5 of them eventually, right beyond.
[1087.85–1090.65s] MTS - A/V: It's about halfway to where I was hoping we could end up, but…
[1090.95–1096.95s] MTS - A/V: Again, I think looking credible and, you know, the whole point of review is, This is sort of…
[1097.37–1099.819s] MTS - A/V: Sustaining our, credibility.
[1100.82–1102.22s] MTS - A/V: I can on the world at large.
[1102.87–1105.59s] MTS - A/V: Any other questions or inputs?
[1108.16–1110.53s] MTS - A/V: Hi, Lars Lieben here.
[1110.78–1111.58s] MTS - A/V: I…
[1111.89–1121.46s] MTS - A/V: I see a lot of criteria and measurements in here that strike me as very strange. I would like to see
[1122.28–1128.27s] MTS - A/V: I either… Also, a column for how these are to be evaluated.
[1129.41–1132.4s] MTS - A/V: These numbers. What's a good number, and what's a bad number?
[1134.57–1145.48s] MTS - A/V: Or, or possibly and, to have these more clearly mapped to the mission and remit of RSAC.
[1147.84–1153.649s] MTS - A/V: I can, I can take… One thing out of the Viteria said, the number of RSAC advisors published
[1154.8–1156.58s] MTS - A/V: What's that got to do with it?
[1156.84–1161.269s] MTS - A/V: The fewer things we publish, the better.
[1162.59–1166.77s] MTS - A/V: Could be a view, because the fewer we publish, the fewer things we publish.
[1167.33–1174.03s] MTS - A/V: means that there are less things to comment on, which means that things are running inside ICANN very well. We don't have to give advice.
[1176.6–1180.739s] MTS - A/V: The fewer email messages we exchange, the better things work.
[1183.09–1186.36s] MTS - A/V: The fewer things we do, the less it will cost.
[1188.91–1191.619s] MTS - A/V: But we still have to fulfill our mission.
[1192.79–1198.959s] MTS - A/V: So mapping it to to the mission is crucial to me. That's where we need to measure
[1199.35–1212.27s] MTS - A/V: How do we fulfill our role and what we do about it? And how can we do that at the most cost effective way, both for ICANN as an organization, but also for ourselves with our time?
[1213.81–1222.619s] MTS - A/V: So how can we avoid spending resources for ICANN? How can we avoid spending resources for ourselves and producing volume
[1222.8–1224.419s] MTS - A/V: uses of resources.
[1224.84–1229.74s] MTS - A/V: So, to find the balance, and how to measure that balance, is…
[1230.23–1233.459s] MTS - A/V: The sweet spot that we want to reach, in my view.
[1233.86–1234.6s] MTS - A/V: Thanks.
[1236.09–1250.939s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, thanks, Liman. That's a valid point. This, I mean, to see if an S or AC is fulfilling its purpose.
[1251.46–1262.829s] MTS - A/V: The first thing we have to answer is whether they are doing what they are supposed to do. For example, I mean, okay, you are right in terms of number of advisories like
[1262.83–1279.54s] MTS - A/V: that we publish or not, but I mean, we have to see it in the ICANN overall structure, because this is what the community would like to see, right? So, if there is an SOAC, right, and it is not producing anything that it's supposed to be, for example.
[1279.54–1286.229s] MTS - A/V: then would it fit in the overall purpose, or or I mean, this is not
[1286.36–1297.72s] MTS - A/V: a question in itself, but a thought that I'm putting forward. So, in that context, the advisories published would still be relevant. Now, how much?
[1297.72–1322.6s] MTS - A/V: is a separate question, right? Because whenever we are asked to do an advisory from board, we have to produce that, right? So otherwise, I mean, but we can also comment on things, for instance, that could also be part of this fulfilling purpose. For example, there is some public comment, and we feel that it is relevant to us, RSAC could also do that. So that could be
[1322.6–1339.919s] MTS - A/V: part of the indicators going forward as well, right? But there is one word that I used is called, is what is benchmarking. That is what I look towards. This is what the column that you mentioned, right? Because going forward, it is very important
[1339.92–1344.33s] MTS - A/V: Whatever we see, we need to decide, right, how
[1344.33–1369.16s] MTS - A/V: is it is going to be measured. And if we think that and evaluate it eventually. So if we think that we can't evaluate it, evaluate that in the as part of the CIP, then we let it go right. This is how the approach would be right when we created this document. These were the suggestions by some of the the members.
[1369.16–1372.67s] MTS - A/V: Right? For instance, and we put that to the…
[1372.67–1384.869s] MTS - A/V: to whole RSEC group to comment and to, you know, update that. But this is what we had at that time. That's why we are starting from this document as of now.
[1386.31–1390.389s] MTS - A/V: But that would be a good discussion to to have going forward.
[1402.35–1403.69s] MTS - A/V: It's Hans, not Mike.
[1409.32–1415.36s] MTS - A/V: I just had it. Sorry. Hans Petterholing, RIPENCE CAKE ROOT.
[1415.62–1420.2s] MTS - A/V: So if I understand correctly, these five principles are mandatory.
[1420.4–1426.15s] MTS - A/V: So then they're non-negotiable. So we need to measure success for each of these principles.
[1426.31–1434.91s] MTS - A/V: And the document, I did a quick count, it's at least 60 indicators, or some of them contains 1, 2, 3, so we're talking maybe…
[1435.77–1450.369s] MTS - A/V: 80 plus numbers, right? I think that is, order of magnitude too high. How can we measure success with identifying, let's say, 3 indicators for each of these principles?
[1450.57–1455.39s] MTS - A/V: That are meaningful, and… You know that I think that's you know.
[1455.52–1464.61s] MTS - A/V: around best practice for some of the methods I use for measuring success or continuous improvement of processes is to keep it as
[1464.74–1476.59s] MTS - A/V: You know, 3 to 5 high-level objectives, and maximum 3 key results for each objective. That brings us to, you know, 15 seems a lot, but still, that's manageable, I think.
[1476.98–1492.399s] MTS - A/V: But reading this, it's really difficult to go through and say that we don't need this one because and then what is really the key one? So I think maybe that's a useful exercise for everybody to look for each of these criteria. What's the top one that needs to be there?
[1492.68–1498.55s] MTS - A/V: And then you probably can't decide on one, but it will be two or three, right? And do we converge on that?
[1501.71–1505.52s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, thanks, Hans and Naveed here.
[1505.57–1517.199s] MTS - A/V: Alright. So what the the cip suggest in its or recommends in its document is that all these principles should have at least 3 to 5 criteria.
[1517.23–1527.01s] MTS - A/V: right? But then, how would you measure that criteria? There could be number of indicators. There might be one for each criteria. There might be more than one.
[1527.01–1538.129s] MTS - A/V: So actually, as you said, right, so we look for at least 15 criteria that we have to fix first, at least 15 more than that.
[1538.13–1544.889s] MTS - A/V: And then we will see how they can be measured, but tho- for those f- 15 we might have.
[1544.89–1569.519s] MTS - A/V: I mean 30 to 40 indicators. And in this document, if once I think there are some indicators that are contributing to more than one principles as well. So there are some overlaps. For example, you measure one thing and you say that, okay, this is you get more members. This is contributing to fulfilling your purpose.
[1569.52–1576.83s] MTS - A/V: for example, as well as the community engagement and all right. So there are some overlaps in this document as well.
[1577.09–1585.159s] MTS - A/V: So, I think you misunderstood me. I was aiming for a maximum of 15 indicators, not 15 per principles.
[1586.32–1600.23s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, I I get you. But what I'm saying is the document CIPCCG document right, which is already in place mandates that we should have at least 3 criteria per principal.
[1600.23–1615.139s] MTS - A/V: right? If you decide to measure one criteria by one indicator, then you can have 15 right? But if there would be some criteria that would require more than one. So I I don't see that we will end up having
[1615.14–1623.71s] MTS - A/V: 15. But, as I said, once we run it as a pilot, we can go for a subset, and to see how things are going right.
[1628.34–1629.55s] MTS - A/V: Liman, please.
[1630.69–1632.79s] MTS - A/V: Thanks, Liman. Here again.
[1633.02–1635.3s] MTS - A/V: Two more comments.
[1635.81–1642.749s] MTS - A/V: I think we shouldn't necessarily… We should back up and and see what we
[1643.26–1648.589s] MTS - A/V: want to evaluate for quality, because I… my sense is that we want to
[1648.85–1652.73s] MTS - A/V: Make sure that we have the right quality of the of the work in the group.
[1653.36–1657.51s] MTS - A/V: And… Quality isn't necessarily mentioned by numbers.
[1657.95–1660.54s] MTS - A/V: Some cases it can be, but not always.
[1660.69–1664.08s] MTS - A/V: So… We, we should also
[1664.86–1673.159s] MTS - A/V: look at these and say, can this be measured in a different way? That gives us a better output and a better understanding of
[1673.5–1674.81s] MTS - A/V: of the quality.
[1675.46–1681.88s] MTS - A/V: And then a totally different question is, Well, this CIP instruction document
[1682.48–1694.95s] MTS - A/V: Does it also come with a financial plan for how to pay for all the work that needs to go into all the SOACs for doing all of this, setting this up, doing the measurements, evaluating and everything for
[1695.31–1698.23s] MTS - A/V: 3 to 5 times 5 criteria.
[1698.39–1701.059s] MTS - A/V: That's a lot of money.
[1704.14–1710.299s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, I'm not the right person, maybe to answer this. But
[1710.3–1734.709s] MTS - A/V: I mean, right? That was a rhetorical question. Yeah. But I think we discussed in the last meeting that it might require a tool to be engaged as well with CIP documents suggest that, right? And we should see some kind of planning of engaging those softwares and those measuring tools that automatically
[1734.74–1759.36s] MTS - A/V: does this workflow, right? So that I have no idea at what point we will do. About the data collection and measuring them, I mean, absolutely right. For example, here in the points that I showed before, I said that there could be some indicators that would be smart in
[1759.36–1783.8s] MTS - A/V: That SMART kind of, but there could be subjective based, right? So that gives an overall quality assessment, but not quantitatively, right? It gives a qualitative assessment of the things, right? And you can have the same data point that contributes partially to the quantitative one and partially to the qualitative one. For example, the advisories that you published.
[1783.91–1793.61s] MTS - A/V: You can have number of advisories, but you can also get the quality of those advisories, right? Somehow, that we have to see how
[1793.61–1813.38s] MTS - A/V: it could be done. You do an engagement with the community. Now, that could not be assessed as, you know, as a number of things, but you can get a survey of the audience, for example, and get their satisfaction level in that. So that is also a qualitative kind of
[1813.38–1817.3s] MTS - A/V: assessment in the process right rather than a quantitative one.
[1817.3–1833.66s] MTS - A/V: So, of course, the, the, this, especially the feedback of the survey that we, different surveys that we, we get as part of the process, should, have that, thing ticked, right? So, that's how I see it.
[1833.74–1834.43s] MTS - A/V: Cube.
[1839.81–1841.399s] MTS - A/V: Any other comment?
[1841.58–1842.31s] MTS - A/V: So…
[1850.12–1854.88s] MTS - A/V: We have Hans from Hans Petter, and then down the end, we have Christian from ICANN Org, who might be able to…
[1855.61–1856.81s] MTS - A/V: So, Christian?
[1858.77–1861.2s] MTS - A/V: Thank you. Christian Wheeler from ICANN Org.
[1861.47–1875.899s] MTS - A/V: I'm part of the CIP team, that's kind of helping, monitor and, and, provide guidance to all the SOACs implementing CIP, so really glad to see that this is being worked on in RSAC, and that a lot of
[1876.01–1878.249s] MTS - A/V: Great thought has been put into this framework.
[1878.44–1882.769s] MTS - A/V: I just wanted to to echo a lot of what what has been said about
[1882.77–1902.13s] MTS - A/V: I understand, you know, the need for flexibility. That is kind of the goal of the CIP framework, is so that each SOAC has some flexibility while still having an overall framework by which all of the SOACs can be looked at when looking holistically about all of their various frameworks, but granted, there will be some variation there.
[1902.13–1908.74s] MTS - A/V: And each SOAC has been tackling it a little bit differently when it comes to their criteria and indicators.
[1908.74–1916.7s] MTS - A/V: What I would suggest, just from my own observations across the other SOACs, is, the…
[1916.89–1927.989s] MTS - A/V: Phase 1 is where, which is where you guys are right now, is the most important, I would say, in terms of scoping and making sure that the indicators and criteria are manageable.
[1928.13–1935.78s] MTS - A/V: With the understanding that while there may not be, you know, the need for You know, 3 indicators.
[1935.86–1941.52s] MTS - A/V: For every single criteria, what's more important is the quality of that data.
[1941.52–1958.0s] MTS - A/V: and how well it is applicable to what RSAC needs in terms of looking at its efficiencies and improvements to be made. So, I would suggest not having indicators, just for having indicators' sake, you know, having the… for the minimum 3.
[1958.0–1967.749s] MTS - A/V: If that can be achieved in less, that is… that can be done. I would recommend not abusing that, as far as just having a… becoming a checkbox exercise.
[1967.75–1980.309s] MTS - A/V: But for instance, looking at some of the… some of the indicators, it's just good to bear in mind what is… first of all, what is even possible to gather? What's reasonable to gather? I know some other SOACs, you know, have…
[1980.45–1995.57s] MTS - A/V: tons of indicators of all of a wish list of everything that they want to see, not all of which is actually possible to gather or would take a lot of manual work or updates to the ICANN Org staff's daily tasks when it comes to
[1995.57–2008.03s] MTS - A/V: tracking some of this data. So really, I would just recommend focusing on what is actually applicable most to the criteria, what data would be most useful to the RSAC to have to make sure that it is
[2008.04–2014.26s] MTS - A/V: on track with its tasks and fulfilling its purpose. And you know, for the various 5 principles.
[2014.31–2023.47s] MTS - A/V: So just wanted to highlight that, and just want to say good job, and also recognizing as well that the criteria and indicators can overlap.
[2023.71–2030.56s] MTS - A/V: So that is… that'll also be useful to help kind of reduce some of that time, particularly that staff would need to do to gather some of that data.
[2030.87–2031.54s] MTS - A/V: Thanks.
[2034.68–2036.34s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, thank you.
[2036.75–2038.93s] MTS - A/V: Anything else from anybody.
[2039.65–2041.1s] MTS - A/V: Is there anybody in queue?
[2043.91–2051.639s] MTS - A/V: Okay, so How much time we have Daniel for today? Is there anything on on the agenda?
[2051.88–2052.92s] MTS - A/V: After this.
[2054.1–2060.53s] MTS - A/V: Yes, actually, Dan Gluck, I'd like to actually talk about some of…
[2060.929–2066.42s] MTS - A/V: Are other organizational-wide goals that we might need to incorporate into
[2066.67–2076.28s] MTS - A/V: our, continuous improvement program. I am pulling up the agenda here. And that'd be our, Workstream 2 update, if that's okay for me to proceed with now.
[2076.62–2079.329s] MTS - A/V: Sure, sure, good. So.
[2079.52–2091.23s] MTS - A/V: Going back a long time, there was a community group, came up with Workstream 1 and Workstream 2 recommendations. Workstream 2 recommendations are still open for most of the SOs and ACs to implement.
[2091.6–2100.609s] MTS - A/V: It has been recommended to us, to implement recommendations 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.
[2100.73–2104.52s] MTS - A/V: From… Pull up the right document.
[2130.48–2131.46s] MTS - A/V: Here we are.
[2133.77–2145.87s] MTS - A/V: So yeah, there are… these are some of the, recommendations to improve diversity. These are standard throughout the different SOs and ACs in terms of goals that we need to accomplish.
[2146.05–2153.03s] MTS - A/V: And it was suggested that we could potentially fold these into some of the continuous improvement program recommendations.
[2153.2–2156.0s] MTS - A/V: And indicators, that we have there.
[2156.52–2167.78s] MTS - A/V: A lot of this, I think, the way Christian summed it up to me was there's a survey that the RSAC could distribute to, the RSAC and the RSAC Caucus.
[2168.15–2173.199s] MTS - A/V: And, then based on the results of that survey, we'd be able to
[2173.39–2183.199s] MTS - A/V: meet our understanding of the structures and the people that are involved in them, and then, try to, I guess.
[2183.36–2191.62s] MTS - A/V: prove, I guess, our… Practices and publications to encourage a.
[2192.37–2194.789s] MTS - A/V: You know, wider swath of people to…
[2195.2–2202.719s] MTS - A/V: become involved with the caucus side of things, because that's… the RSAC's not open, but the RSAC caucus, is
[2203.14–2204.63s] MTS - A/V: To…
[2204.9–2215.02s] MTS - A/V: applicants that aren't attached to an RSO. So, we have these four recommendations here. I've tried to see if they could fit within…
[2215.37–2217.389s] MTS - A/V: Our working document…
[2220.43–2221.989s] MTS - A/V: Pull that up here.
[2227.04–2232.95s] MTS - A/V: Adding to the, number of… Indicators that we have, but…
[2233.24–2236.37s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, the just a couple of statements here and
[2237.01–2242.54s] MTS - A/V: fits into the idea that RSAC has a mechanism to efficiently allocate and use of.
[2242.86–2246.45s] MTS - A/V: Available human resources as per the opportunities to contribute.
[2247.16–2251.949s] MTS - A/V: the three goals here. I don't really think there's anything
[2252.74–2260.219s] MTS - A/V: Now, to discuss, because there really hasn't been a lot shared about this in recent times, and no one has an opportunity to
[2260.39–2261.769s] MTS - A/V: Read all of this yet?
[2261.91–2264.91s] MTS - A/V: Just something for us to consider going forward.
[2265.22–2271.61s] MTS - A/V: our, our Inclusion of these efforts of the Workstream 2 recommendations.
[2271.76–2274.75s] MTS - A/V: Potentially into our continuous improvement program.
[2274.96–2276.389s] MTS - A/V: work as well.
[2276.59–2278.19s] MTS - A/V: And Christian has a hand.
[2279.91–2280.87s] MTS - A/V: Thanks, Dan.
[2281.22–2294.829s] MTS - A/V: Yes, so there is, a good potential for overlap here for the Workstream 2 recommendations, and these came out in 2018, which included a lot of recommendations both for ICANN Org and for the SOACs.
[2294.91–2314.089s] MTS - A/V: And to date, the SOACs have not yet fully implemented Workstream 2 Recommendation 1, which is about diversity, and so it is this 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, that still need to be implemented, largely across the community, and
[2314.52–2320.74s] MTS - A/V: It's actually pretty. I would say it's pretty simple to implement, I believe, because
[2320.83–2335.14s] MTS - A/V: 1.2 is just to do a, look through the various working documents, charters, operating procedures, to see where are these, seven diversity elements, mentioned, if at all.
[2335.14–2348.07s] MTS - A/V: And staff has already kind of done a review of that, and from what I've seen there, it isn't mentioned in any of them, but that… once that's kind of completed, you know, as a review, just formally, then say, okay, 1.2 is done.
[2348.1–2351.029s] MTS - A/V: 1.3 is the actual diversity survey.
[2351.06–2369.96s] MTS - A/V: Which has… a template has already been drafted by staff. It would just need to be sent, and obviously amended some of the questions if needed. And then point four is publishing it and coming up with some kind of, objectives to increase diversity if necessary, if relevant.
[2370.09–2384.14s] MTS - A/V: And point 1.5 is about, kind of committing to doing it once every, no later than one every three years, which is… aligns with the CIP cycle as well, which also happens every three years. So if this was just built into the.
[2384.86–2387.58s] MTS - A/V: the CIP cycles.
[2387.66–2388.79s] MTS - A/V: then…
[2388.8–2408.359s] MTS - A/V: this is already a good source of data that could be used, whether it's for principle, you know, 4 or 5, there could be some overlap as far as being accountable internally to stakeholders and substructures, or fulfilling the mission of ICANN, that sort of thing. So, I mean, there's definitely ways to incorporate that, since it's already an exercise that needs to be done.
[2408.36–2417.729s] MTS - A/V: And it's about data gathering to use some of that data. And then once it's in the CIP and you say, yes, we've done the survey, that's a check. And you have that indicator.
[2417.81–2420.519s] MTS - A/V: So, there is some good opportunity there to
[2420.82–2435.58s] MTS - A/V: kind of take credit for both and knock out 2 birds with one stone, and, as I said, the survey is already done. It just needs to be sent out and published. And so there is some. It's I would consider it some pretty low hanging fruit. Granted, it does have some
[2435.9–2436.84s] MTS - A/V: of
[2437.09–2443.12s] MTS - A/V: people have different feelings about diversity and whether they want to publish that kind of data. So that's obviously a conversation that needs to be had.
[2443.19–2448.839s] MTS - A/V: But there is some good overlap here that could, be used well for the CIP.
[2448.85–2460.409s] MTS - A/V: Bearing in mind that you don't want to have too many indicators and be overwhelmed with too much stuff. So, as a reminder, too, the CIP is, right now, is the first cycle. It's very much a pilot.
[2460.41–2470.079s] MTS - A/V: Right now, you don't need to have everything under the sun, and it's the understanding that with each cycle, the criterion indicators could be updated. So…
[2470.16–2472.099s] MTS - A/V: Don't feel like you need to…
[2472.42–2482.809s] MTS - A/V: can boil the ocean here. So, just wanted to flag that, because this could be a good opportunity to knock this out, which has been on the community's plate for quite some time.
[2483.25–2483.95s] MTS - A/V: Thanks.
[2486.73–2488.31s] MTS - A/V: Christian, just to
[2488.43–2498.13s] MTS - A/V: confirm when you say each cycle. There have been a bunch of numbers of years called cycle. Do you mean every one year, 3 years, 6 year.
[2498.37–2502.739s] MTS - A/V: The CIP is imagined to be a 3-year cycle.
[2502.87–2519.46s] MTS - A/V: How they, how they set it up in the framework, just as a matter of trying to be, flexible and overall is just kind of a broad swath that it'd be one year for… you know, for creating the criterion indicators, one year for implementing improvements, and then one year for reporting.
[2519.59–2522.52s] MTS - A/V: Granted on the ground. It's probably not gonna
[2522.74–2531.779s] MTS - A/V: align that, you know, that quickly, especially with the fact that these are continuous improvements. Improvements are happening all the time. That's kind of why we're really hoping that
[2531.97–2542.089s] MTS - A/V: For at least for this first cycle, which ends this first three-year CIP cycle, which ends July 2028, is when a progress report would need to be published.
[2543.98–2549.47s] MTS - A/V: The Workstream 2 recommendation, I think it's 1.5 or 1.6.
[2549.93–2554.47s] MTS - A/V: Is that a diversity survey would be conducted by each soac.
[2554.83–2562.119s] MTS - A/V: no later than, you know, once every 3 years. So, that could align with the CIP if they wanted to incorporate that as part of the CIP.
[2563.57–2564.969s] MTS - A/V: Thank you. That cleared it up.
[2566.62–2580.68s] MTS - A/V: And also to clarify, too, that the progress report is something that gets published for public comment, and as you noted, you don't need to… it is kind of like a snapshot point in time. This is, you know, basically saying, this is our criterion indicators.
[2580.68–2595.3s] MTS - A/V: this is what we have to date, these are the improvements that we've identified and prioritized, and these are where we're at with the ones that we've prioritized. It doesn't… you don't need to complete all the improvements. You can say we've, you know, we're focusing on principles 1 and 2 for this first cycle.
[2595.3–2612.2s] MTS - A/V: And for the next cycle, we'll focus on the next three, or what have you. So it is flexible, and it is not meant to be something that you need to complete everything by July 2028. It is just kind of a point in time, just to make sure that everyone is kept on making progress toward continuous improvement, which
[2612.2–2617.77s] MTS - A/V: all the SOACs are already always doing, so this is just kind of a matter of taking credit for what work you're doing.
[2622.93–2623.86s] MTS - A/V: Hans. Better.
[2626.39–2630.04s] MTS - A/V: So Hans Petter ripens the sea still.
[2632.26–2641.58s] MTS - A/V: The survey sounds like a low-hanging fruit, right? You said it's already done. Could you share what's in that survey, at least on a high level?
[2643.97–2659.959s] MTS - A/V: Sure, I don't have the document pulled up in front of me, but it is questions that align with those seven elements of diversity. I believe there's two surveys that staff had drafted, one that is
[2660.07–2664.77s] MTS - A/V: kind of following those those 7 elements which ones are applicable to you. That sort of thing.
[2664.83–2684.27s] MTS - A/V: And then there was another survey, if the community would prefer to have a different kind of range of data that would be more… that's more aligned with, barriers to participation, to see, like, are there… are you experiencing any barriers? How are they linked to, you know, your, perspective as a community member and your.
[2684.57–2701.619s] MTS - A/V: whatever diversity elements are applicable to you. So there are two surveys drafted. You could combine them into one, or you could do them separately. It doesn't… it's not required that you do two. It's just that a survey that's basically in line with
[2702.38–2713.089s] MTS - A/V: the diversity elements, and which ones are applicable to your community group. And the first step of that, 1.2, I believe, is about what is mentioned, what
[2713.23–2732.7s] MTS - A/V: if any, elements of diversity or requirements of diversity are noted in your operating documents, which I don't believe there is any at this point, so it's not a requirement. that you need to have it as part of it, it's just kind of a fact-gathering mission, which I believe staff has already kind of done, and I can share that with whoever I need to.
[2732.8–2747.129s] MTS - A/V: Follow-up question to that. We already do a survey once a year for the RSAC caucus, so if we'd been, you know, one month earlier, we couldn't have incorporated some of that in this survey, which would be, you know, a really low-hanging fruit.
[2747.15–2762.579s] MTS - A/V: Especially the… and maybe we already have questions there on barrier for participation, right? Because I think some of this we have geographic diversity, we already measure, for instance. So for the RSAC caucus, this could make some sense.
[2762.59–2778.049s] MTS - A/V: For RSAC, it's much more difficult because we're appointed by our own serving organizations. And, you know, if we're going to introduce gender diversity, then, well, half of us will have to go home and change to one of our female colleagues.
[2778.05–2783.79s] MTS - A/V: which will then be a difficult decision to choose which half of the organization. And I mean.
[2784.56–2788.729s] MTS - A/V: I see the greater good there, but I find it very difficult in an…
[2789.1–2796.449s] MTS - A/V: in a body like, like RSAC, where it's representing individual organizations, right? So…
[2796.69–2807.15s] MTS - A/V: Yeah. So mapping it out and having it survey and reporting on it. Sure. But then once we have those numbers, what do we want to do with them? Big question mark.
[2807.84–2827.66s] MTS - A/V: RSAC caucus, or we could make a drive to… I think we identify some regions that we lack participation for, so we could do outreach there. And there may be other diversity factors that could also be, you know, interesting to think about. That may mean changing the criteria we have in some manners, because
[2827.7–2830.659s] MTS - A/V: We're focusing on a very narrow skill set.
[2830.94–2838.009s] MTS - A/V: And if it's diversity in skills, then, you know, we may need to have different criteria for skill sets, right? So, yeah.
[2842.12–2848.869s] MTS - A/V: Just to speak for that, I spent, I forget how many years, as the chairman of the membership committee, and in practice.
[2849.06–2859.35s] MTS - A/V: although not in documentation. When we received an application from somebody in an area that was underrepresented.
[2859.57–2869.199s] MTS - A/V: the… The universal thinking among the membership was that the criteria should not be as strict.
[2869.44–2877.939s] MTS - A/V: For a variety of reasons. And similarly, the requirement was stricter in overrepresented areas.
[2877.99–2889.78s] MTS - A/V: So documenting that I think would be challenging. But it was absolutely something where, as you're saying, there are, you know, this is 12 companies that are 12 individuals. It's kind of hard to
[2889.89–2892.989s] MTS - A/V: To enforce how you end up with.
[2893.17–2907.539s] MTS - A/V: with some kind of imagined good. The caucus is a lot easier and it's probably the place where you could document it if you wanted to. But just to say that the practice of the last few years was.
[2907.65–2919.349s] MTS - A/V: was actively, you know, trying to seek greater geographic and God knows the gender diversification is the ongoing technical problem for 40 plus years I've been doing this.
[2920.1–2923.459s] MTS - A/V: You know, you can try, but there's only so much you can get to.
[2931.8–2935.089s] MTS - A/V: Sorry, I'm… just want to
[2935.34–2941.489s] MTS - A/V: agree with the notion as far as that there is a survey already being done for the RSAC caucus, I would encourage
[2941.73–2946.93s] MTS - A/V: incorporating into current practices as much as possible, including with the CIP.
[2947.21–2953.04s] MTS - A/V: Just because I'm noting that the community has a lot on their plates, and so…
[2953.17–2966.93s] MTS - A/V: Obviously, we don't want to… to add too much burden, and so that's why, especially with this first cycle, to incorporate as much work as you're already doing, improvements that you're already working on or know about, and…
[2967.76–2979.96s] MTS - A/V: taking… getting credit for what you're already doing, without having to create too much, you know, without requiring any kind of changes to processes out the gate. It's really just about trying to.
[2980.12–2982.609s] MTS - A/V: See how much, how many birds you can get with one stone.
[2982.77–2984.4s] MTS - A/V: so I'd encourage that as much as possible.
[2987.87–2991.62s] MTS - A/V: So, commenting on that list, we already do geographic region.
[2991.9–3007.079s] MTS - A/V: I'm not sure how to interpret regional representation, but we already have geography. I saw a pie chart on that. That's easy. Language, I don't think we track that. We have English as a working language, so we haven't ever kind of thought about that as…
[3007.39–3008.7s] MTS - A/V: as necessary.
[3008.84–3023.809s] MTS - A/V: Gender, we don't track. It could be interesting to map out, but you can see how many women we have in this room. Not many today. Usually we have a couple, but it's very imbalanced. Age, interesting.
[3023.86–3036.2s] MTS - A/V: Physical disability, that's a health data. That's not something that I'm necessarily willing to even share or know letters stored. So I think I can need to be very careful with
[3036.6–3039.1s] MTS - A/V: You know.
[3039.27–3042.169s] MTS - A/V: For what purpose are they asking that question, right?
[3042.45–3047.889s] MTS - A/V: For assistant at the meeting, and so on, for sure, but… Yeah,
[3048.22–3052.049s] MTS - A/V: I don't know if that's something that the RSAC wants to…
[3052.6–3056.1s] MTS - A/V: to store for participating in virtual meetings.
[3056.49–3063.839s] MTS - A/V: Diverse skills. Yeah, that's back to what I said. We have requirements of having knowledge about DNS and
[3063.96–3067.869s] MTS - A/V: understanding root server operations. We do get
[3068.19–3072.49s] MTS - A/V: Applications that have very diverse skills.
[3072.91–3082.109s] MTS - A/V: But they're missing the core understanding of that, right? And that also reflects on stakeholder groups and constituency. We don't ask that questions, because that's…
[3082.67–3091.739s] MTS - A/V: kind of irrelevant on whether somebody with those skills identify as a numbers or a names person, or academia, or whatever.
[3092.42–3095.9s] MTS - A/V: So, how relevant this is for us?
[3096.45–3097.57s] MTS - A/V: I don't know.
[3098.14–3100.839s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, if I can just
[3101.62–3121.339s] MTS - A/V: comment on that. This is Naveed. I think one of the idea of work stream to recommendation, this recommendation is that it mandates each SOAC to identify which aspects are relevant to them, and not to incorporate all of them.
[3121.34–3126.649s] MTS - A/V: So I don't think that it's a requirement that we have to fulfill all seven of them.
[3126.65–3151.14s] MTS - A/V: It is, I think the exercise would be to identify which are relevant to them and how we are, are doing, there, right? So, and, I think collecting data for all of them, would still be, or can still be done, but then, as a conclusion or as a valuation, RSAC can always put into place that these are the.
[3151.22–3168.86s] MTS - A/V: the aspects of diversity that we are, we are incorporating, and these are the, the reasons for that. I think for, for the disability, I think in the survey, you can always, I mean,
[3169.18–3172.83s] MTS - A/V: ask the the the participant.
[3172.83–3197.269s] MTS - A/V: to reveal if they want to, and that gives a kind of, you know, a knowledge to our SAC that we have someone that has kind of disability, right, or an aspect of that. It is no way, right, mandating them or requiring them to do that, but you can incorporate that as part of the survey.
[3197.27–3210.339s] MTS - A/V: But my point there is that under certain countries' privacy laws, you need to have a ground for collecting that data. And I don't see how we have the grounds to collect that. Therefore, we can't even ask it.
[3210.42–3223.28s] MTS - A/V: and store it in a volunteer basis. And the text here says that the ASO/AC groups should agree that the following seven elements of diversity should be used as a common starting point.
[3223.48–3235.83s] MTS - A/V: for all diversity considerations. So I read at least two shoulds in that sentence, so I find it difficult to, as a starting point, eliminate any of them. It sounds more like we should add more.
[3237.49–3261.42s] MTS - A/V: 1.2 actually says that you need to identify which are relevant to the to you, for instance, and I did it that way. So of course, I think 7 are part of the diversity, and this is what they they say. And then they say that, okay, you identify which were not relevant to them, and you regularly publish the status of the that. I think it is that way it could be incorporated.
[3262.67–3264.47s] MTS - A/V: We have Rob, and then Christian.
[3267.09–3270.96s] MTS - A/V: Hi, Rob Carolina with, RSAC ISC.
[3271.1–3272.17s] MTS - A/V: F root.
[3272.71–3278.509s] MTS - A/V: My apologies, because I was just sitting here, and it took me a minute to connect the dots.
[3278.85–3286.689s] MTS - A/V: I just realized that I I worked with the workstream to cross community group
[3286.93–3290.21s] MTS - A/V: Implementation Committee that discussed exactly what we're…
[3290.53–3295.539s] MTS - A/V: talking about here, and and that work, I think, predates the
[3295.73–3301.34s] MTS - A/V: the group we're referring to. I mean, our outputs from that group became inputs
[3301.86–3304.18s] MTS - A/V: For this, for this latest group.
[3305.57–3314.4s] MTS - A/V: One thing that I can say with a very high degree of confidence from my time in that work group is it was recognized that
[3314.9–3319.71s] MTS - A/V: These sets of criteria that we're talking about right now are
[3320.34–3329.4s] MTS - A/V: not always equally applicable to every SO and AC in… ICANN
[3330.06–3336.1s] MTS - A/V: and there, for an organization like Rsac, for example.
[3336.46–3342.399s] MTS - A/V: where the… Goal is to produce advice.
[3342.96–3354.56s] MTS - A/V: For the community, but the membership is driven around representatives from a series of identified root server operators.
[3357.23–3360.95s] MTS - A/V: That's not what a lot of these criteria were designed for.
[3361.14–3366.54s] MTS - A/V: It just wasn't. There was. There was an absolute recognition of that in the work stream 2.
[3367.28–3375.73s] MTS - A/V: implementation group. So I would have a high… degree of confidence.
[3375.91–3385.77s] MTS - A/V: that RSAC should be able Very quickly, to look at A number of these points.
[3386.09–3387.38s] MTS - A/V: and say.
[3387.57–3391.339s] MTS - A/V: They simply are not applicable to RSAC.
[3392.49–3393.61s] MTS - A/V: Because.
[3394.76–3402.78s] MTS - A/V: that's not the nature of what RSAC is doing for ICANN and for the internet.
[3403.17–3408.269s] MTS - A/V: That's not who we are, that's not what we are. And as Hans Petter
[3408.83–3414.49s] MTS - A/V: Rightly points out, each of the root server operators sends One.
[3415.25–3420.2s] MTS - A/V: member. I'm sorry. 2 members to Rsac. There's
[3420.95–3425.339s] MTS - A/V: I… we can't even begin the process of figuring out to coordinate
[3425.69–3439.709s] MTS - A/V: which server operator is going to decide how to alter the composition of their delegation. I mean, if we were to hypothesize, you know, if RSAC were the type of organization that had 180 members.
[3440.31–3446.15s] MTS - A/V: You know, popularly elected, or had 200… was a… was a, you know, some sort of a…
[3446.26–3464.679s] MTS - A/V: a parliamentary-type organization with 210 members, and they had to choose a 40-member executive committee, or so… you know, there's all sorts of things that can be done with those types of structures, but that's not what RSAC is. RSAC doesn't represent
[3465.84–3467.28s] MTS - A/V: a community.
[3468.17–3473.659s] MTS - A/V: RSAC is a group comprised of people who have been assembled.
[3473.92–3476.069s] MTS - A/V: To provide advice about.
[3476.3–3477.8s] MTS - A/V: The root server system.
[3478.9–3481.21s] MTS - A/V: That's it. It's a niche role.
[3481.34–3482.95s] MTS - A/V: And…
[3483.56–3500.899s] MTS - A/V: I would applaud Hans Petter for pointing out what should be the obvious as well, which is that I'll go a step further, Hans Petter. It's not just that the privacy laws of some countries limit the ability to ask for or hold this data.
[3501.25–3506.79s] MTS - A/V: the privacy laws of every country I've encountered…
[3507.79–3510.99s] MTS - A/V: with the notable exception of the United States.
[3512.14–3518.81s] MTS - A/V: Limits severely under the GDPR. Of course, this is special category data.
[3519.0–3529.329s] MTS - A/V: which you'll be very familiar with, obviously in Europe. But that model is replicated in so many places now throughout, you know, Latin America and Asia.
[3529.4–3540.659s] MTS - A/V: the number of countries that don't have that protection. The only way to gather that kind of data, and, you know, I'm sure that… I'm sure that… I mean, ICANN have a number of very, very competent
[3540.81–3546.08s] MTS - A/V: Lawyers, I'm sure, who I know from working with them, they're very, very capable.
[3546.38–3554.77s] MTS - A/V: folks, you know, they're going to have to go and request express permission from anyone before anyone discloses the data. So…
[3555.05–3560.51s] MTS - A/V: I, I would hope that we could navigate ourselves pretty quickly.
[3560.66–3563.359s] MTS - A/V: Past this particular point, in terms of…
[3563.57–3570.58s] MTS - A/V: Feeling comfortable and confident that we will be able to write a couple of sentences when the time comes as to why.
[3571.15–3576.12s] MTS - A/V: This is just not the sort of thing we need to be concerned with in terms of assessing our
[3576.76–3578.29s] MTS - A/V: or function.
[3581.63–3582.41s] MTS - A/V: Kirsten.
[3584.16–3588.12s] MTS - A/V: Thank you. I just wanted to provide, because I was able to pull up the.
[3588.57–3595.629s] MTS - A/V: sample survey, that staff, helped draft back in, looks like, 2023.
[3595.94–3602.46s] MTS - A/V: And just to give some, some context as far as the questions that are suggested to be asked, or just
[3602.62–3608.819s] MTS - A/V: available to be asked. The first one, with regards to disability, is about
[3609.33–3617.709s] MTS - A/V: Providing consent to process personal data, and the anonymization of the survey results for if it were to be published.
[3618.04–3622.19s] MTS - A/V: But the questions… Ask.
[3622.59–3629.59s] MTS - A/V: Do you have any physical disabilities or accessibility needs that are relevant to your participation in ICANN? Yes, no, prefer not to say.
[3630.26–3636.16s] MTS - A/V: And if yes, what accessibility needs do you have that are relevant to your participation?
[3636.36–3640.329s] MTS - A/V: And how well are these accessibility needs being met? A scale of 0 to 5.
[3640.75–3655.16s] MTS - A/V: Those are the only questions. So there's no ask of, what is your disability? There's no ask of anything like that. It's just a matter of… it's framed in the fact of, do you have accessibility needs that are not being met? So I just kind of wanted to…
[3655.45–3657.16s] MTS - A/V: Provide that kind of clarification.
[3662.42–3665.059s] MTS - A/V: And also not to say that those questions have to be asked.
[3665.67–3666.949s] MTS - A/V: Or phrased in that way.
[3679.23–3683.919s] MTS - A/V: Our next steps with the work party, or the next steps with what's on screen right now?
[3684.33–3688.319s] MTS - A/V: It would be to incorporate them into our CIP indicators.
[3690.64–3696.89s] MTS - A/V: So you have not just taken the list of 62 and added another, so we know up to 70 plus.
[3703.39–3708.239s] MTS - A/V: I mean, I'm pushing for this because you started saying how the goals should be smart, right?
[3708.35–3714.559s] MTS - A/V: And then that means that we're looking at indicators that we set a goal or a target for.
[3714.74–3717.749s] MTS - A/V: Now, if we measure gender diversity.
[3718.22–3733.029s] MTS - A/V: What's the goal? What's the target? Right? Is the target as Norwegian board again, you by law have to have at least 30% members of the board of either gender. Do we want to, you know, is that the target?
[3733.28–3740.68s] MTS - A/V: for caucus, for instance, right? And that is more important than other criteria. I
[3741.04–3757.979s] MTS - A/V: I wouldn't have to go the way you said, Jeff, that we would have to relax some of the skill sets criteria in order to meet some of the other criteria. I really want to find people that are qualified and that… and still fulfill the diversity criteria. Sometimes that's…
[3758.21–3762.529s] MTS - A/V: Difficult, but, you know, it's so difficult to get,
[3762.89–3766.8s] MTS - A/V: and set the wrong target. So, for these ones.
[3767.29–3775.43s] MTS - A/V: What's the target, right? We measure this, but then some people will say we're doing bad because we don't reach some targets set by others.
[3776.02–3779.46s] MTS - A/V: And then… How do we relate to that?
[3784.99–3787.03s] MTS - A/V: I'll defer to the new chair.
[3793.66–3794.57s] MTS - A/V: Okay.
[3794.77–3798.649s] MTS - A/V: Okay, look like we just discussed this at lunch. This is kind of funny.
[3799.41–3814.91s] MTS - A/V: like Hans Petter, I have this issue in my own organization, where ideally, we would love to be diverse in everything from geography to gender and all the rest of it. The lengths we go to attempting to hire
[3815.13–3825.969s] MTS - A/V: Women, for instance, who are C-coders, who are in the DNS world enough that, you know, we can start from somewhere, has been frustrating in the extreme.
[3826.08–3829.649s] MTS - A/V: So… You know, if you can measure the effort
[3829.86–3841.149s] MTS - A/V: somehow, and just say that you're really trying. That's one thing. But you know, if we were to come up with which bit 30%, if somehow, 30% of my developers tomorrow had to be
[3841.55–3848.859s] MTS - A/V: either men or women, or I don't know how you how you deal with it with the whole, the whole panoply of genders.
[3849.67–3855.22s] MTS - A/V: You know, it just, in practical terms, it just, it gets really, really hard.
[3855.38–3858.859s] MTS - A/V: And it's even harder because there are,
[3859.38–3867.98s] MTS - A/V: you know, this… this gets out of… we all like thinking all problems are solvable by technology. Well, this is… this is kind of a political one, and then I…
[3868.17–3879.039s] MTS - A/V: Guess I'm going to be the first one to throw up there that ICANN is an American corporation based in California. I think the current administration considers requiring this kind of list illegal.
[3880.14–3881.11s] MTS - A/V: literally.
[3881.32–3886.779s] MTS - A/V: So that's why I threw this to to Lehman, because
[3887.63–3896.01s] MTS - A/V: This is something hard that all well-intentioned people are trying to solve, and it's just complicated in the extreme.
[3899.29–3913.12s] MTS - A/V: So I don't know what to say. And then further organizing and quantifying it and documenting it and requiring that it be met in spite of it being so challenging to even define, I just, I'm…
[3913.75–3919.059s] MTS - A/V: You know, this is one of those things that literally makes me thrilled at the end of the week. This is no longer my problem.
[3929.36–3938.839s] MTS - A/V: Thank you. I would just suggest that, at least for this first CIP cycle, that you don't need to set Benchmarks, particularly with regards to diversity.
[3940.9–3950.479s] MTS - A/V: As was noted on the screen that we just moved off of, just conducting the survey enough is… is… Good progress, or showing that it's being made.
[3950.62–3955.029s] MTS - A/V: On rec… for Rec Stream 2, Recommendation 1.4.
[3955.23–3963.749s] MTS - A/V: Says to publish… Diversity criteria, objectives, and strategies for achieving these.
[3963.97–3965.929s] MTS - A/V: on on their official website.
[3967.11–3975.449s] MTS - A/V: That is obviously up to RSAC what it thinks its diversity criteria, objectives, and our strategies should be.
[3975.61–3992.71s] MTS - A/V: What is even relevant, what is… what is practical, or not. So, I would just suggest, at least for this first cycle, and if it were to incorporate into CIP, to keep it simple, and not try to… to set expectations that are unreasonable.
[3992.97–4003.829s] MTS - A/V: Also, recognizing that it is a very hot topic issue and a sensitive issue, particularly when it comes to publishing that information. So just bearing all that in mind.
[4020.31–4021.18s] MTS - A/V: Frederick?
[4022.14–4028.92s] MTS - A/V: Fredrik Netnod, I wrote, what is the timeframe here? When does this document need to be finished, approved, etc?
[4029.49–4036.619s] MTS - A/V: And are we the ones approving it, or should someone else approve it? Are you asking for the… are the initial indicators for the CIP?
[4036.87–4037.96s] MTS - A/V: Exactly. Yeah.
[4038.48–4043.23s] MTS - A/V: We have a… I think our goal is within the next few months.
[4048.87–4060.909s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, I think. 3 months to 4 months we should be done with, maybe before the next ICANN meeting, or by the next ICANN meeting we should have some some
[4061.03–4065.83s] MTS - A/V: Agreement on… on… What are those, right?
[4065.91–4078.949s] MTS - A/V: As I said, a second part would be how… what would be the steps after, what are the implementation plans for RSAC, because RSAC might choose to have a subset of those
[4078.95–4097.999s] MTS - A/V: right and say that, okay for a pilot, we would go for that. But that's II think, in the in the working party document. It's not mentioned that one. So our remit as of now would just be to to fix those and identify those criteria and indicators.
[4107.04–4108.68s] MTS - A/V: Christian and then Kent?
[4110.939–4122.48s] MTS - A/V: I'm sorry, I think that's an old hand. But I would just say that the… yes, as far as agreement on criteria indicators and how those are evaluated, would be great.
[4122.91–4130.729s] MTS - A/V: As well, if that includes consolidating some or reducing some, updating them, that sort of thing. So, I think that that's a worthwhile goal.
[4133.68–4138.349s] MTS - A/V: This is Kent. Just 2 suggestions for the the work party.
[4138.6–4140.86s] MTS - A/V: I know it's been a while since I've looked at this document.
[4141.33–4146.09s] MTS - A/V: If we were to just look at the criteria without any indicators, just the criteria.
[4146.66–4149.8s] MTS - A/V: Just are we still? Is this still a good list?
[4150.029–4154.759s] MTS - A/V: Are there any things that are missing? Any things that can be thrown away or combined?
[4155.0–4157.81s] MTS - A/V: And then… After that.
[4158.04–4161.209s] MTS - A/V: Let's pick some of the easy ones. Easy.
[4162.0–4167.399s] MTS - A/V: principal criteria pairs that have an existing set of of indicators.
[4167.75–4172.289s] MTS - A/V: Look through that, and, you know, let's… let's try… let's try the easy ones first.
[4172.72–4175.349s] MTS - A/V: And see how it goes, and then…
[4178.39–4181.919s] MTS - A/V: Those can be our initial ones to go through the first… first round, but
[4182.189–4184.75s] MTS - A/V: I think it'll give us a lot of experience.
[4184.85–4187.35s] MTS - A/V: Ability to do the slightly harder ones.
[4190.069–4191.45s] MTS - A/V: To follow that, yeah.
[4192.74–4200.94s] MTS - A/V: Frederick not here again. I was about to say the same thing as Ken did, with the addition or change, that a lot of these indicators are…
[4201.11–4205.91s] MTS - A/V: quantitative, right? I think we should have fewer indicators, and they should be qualitative.
[4206.12–4219.99s] MTS - A/V: So the goal doesn't have to be a hard number, because then you usually get into that the number should be higher or lower, it should be zero or a gazillion, right? But usually, we need some qualitative good enough measure.
[4220.12–4222.099s] MTS - A/V: Not an absolute number.
[4222.66–4227.819s] MTS - A/V: And then I was about to say something else. I forgot. I will take the mic again if I remember.
[4233.11–4242.489s] MTS - A/V: So… I'm not sure I understand how you can measure something without numbers, but we can have that discussion.
[4242.65–4250.62s] MTS - A/V: Also, we should, and this is a comment from the SOAC chair's meeting yesterday.
[4250.8–4267.33s] MTS - A/V: ICANN has been very good at measuring effort. We need to measure outcomes. So anything that's effort-based, we could basically strike from the list and look for how do we measure outcome. So number of meetings or number of reports, that's kind of effort, but
[4268.16–4272.829s] MTS - A/V: It's the outcome. And how on earth do we measure that? That's the really difficult part.
[4278.2–4286.919s] MTS - A/V: So yeah, that's pretty much the time that we have here. I'll pass it off to Naveed for some closing remarks, and then I'll give an update on our next work party meeting.
[4288.1–4302.759s] MTS - A/V: Yeah, I thank everyone for the participation and looking forward to your comments in the document directly. So all those some of those that, for example, you you in said about quality versus quantity.
[4302.76–4309.66s] MTS - A/V: Please put those as as a starting point in the document, and we can
[4309.66–4318.019s] MTS - A/V: continue our discussion and looking forward to to the next call for for the working party. Thank you everyone for
[4318.09–4332.29s] MTS - A/V: Participation, thank you. And we are highlighting for our next call right now, we are looking at November 2nd, Monday, November 2nd. I believe that will be at 16 UTC with the time zone shift?
[4332.85–4335.589s] MTS - A/V: So, keep an eye out for a calendar invite.
[4336.21–4339.32s] MTS - A/V: And, Jeff, want to close this out?
[4340.35–4346.49s] MTS - A/V: Thank you, Naveed. Appreciate the effort very much, Daniel, as always for the magic. Thanks. Please stop the recording.

Made by AgentCommunity // Balázs Némethi