[NCUC-DISCUSS] [cip-ccg] Meeting Follow-Up & Next Steps | Next Meeting 14 May 2025 @ 14 UTC

Wed May 14 15:21:08 CEST 2025

Dear Kathy,
Thank you for the follow-up questions.

As a representative of NCUC in the CIP CCG, a group with diverse
stakeholders, it is difficult to be happy about the 5 principles; however,
I can boldly say that the existing 5 principles have achieved
consensus across the group members. The 5 principles were inspired by or
extracted from the ICANN Bylaws.

Here are the 5 Continuous improvement principles :
1. The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.
2. The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.
3. The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.
4. The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders and
substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider ICANN
community.
5. The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN and
the effectiveness of the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder model.

The *4th principle* was a contentious item, and different stakeholders
still have their take on it. The NCUC standpoint, which is also my belief,
is that SO should only be accountable to its stakeholders.
The *major* point of contention is that in the review process, it is
difficult to create a one-size-fits-all review template for a diverse
multistakeholder community. ICANN, each group has different ways of
evaluating its improvements.

*Are others from NCUC happy with the fairness of the negotiations and
compromises? *
There was a call for a group of volunteers to give feedback, and we met a
handful of times to discuss the principles, as we were tasked with the duty
to develop indicators for the principles, so I believe those of NCUC
members who volunteered were satisfied that their input was communicated
and reflected in the final outcome. However, it is important to remember
that the principles are just a framework, and NCUC (SOs) have to continue
to follow the CIP CCG process and ensure that they continue to shape the
discussion as well as the outcome of the process. The implementation is
also supposed to be flexible as applicable to each SO/AC (group).

* Do they reflect good principles and protect all Stakeholders - are they
something we can live with? *
The principles stemming from ICANN bylaws and used as a framework
(guide) appear to be a useful approach, as it is now left for the SOs to
implement as they deem fit for their group. I have participated in the
process to ensure the NCUC's interest and voice are considered, but our
community must be vigilant and stay close to the process to ensure that we
get the desired outcome.

*Do you have ideas for how we keep the two projects from overlapping and
causing extra, overlapping or duplicative work our (and all) already busy
Stakeholder Groups?*
The best way to keep the process from overlapping and causing extra work is
for the Holistic Review Team to review and continue the CIP CCG work thus
far and consult with some of their members who were part of the CIP CCG
for some guidance.  I believe this will help consolidate the efforts
already expended on the CIP CCG.
They can also consult the ICANN community anywhere there are contentions or
difficulties.

I hope these few explanations help somewhat as the conversation is still
ongoing, even today, as I attend the CIP CCG meeting, I will have these
questions in my hands. I will come back to the list if I get a clearer
response to give.

Kind regards,
Benjamin

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:43 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:

> Dear Benjamin,
>
> Tx you for this detailed answer. Very much appreciated!   It is exactly
> the type of detailed background, from an expert, that we need to proceed.
>
> Let me ask some follow-up questions:
> *As someone deeply involved in this issue, are you happy with the 5
> principles of the Continuous Improvement Program?  Are others from NCUC
> happy with the fairness of the negotiations and compromises?  Do they
> reflect good principles and protect all Stakeholders - are they something
> we can live with?  *
>
> Like you, I hear about the new (draft) Holistic Review and am not sure how
> it is different (or overlaps with) the Continuous Improvement Project --
> *do you have ideas for how we keep the two projects from overlapping and
> causing extra, overlapping or duplicative work our (and all) already busy
> Stakeholder Groups? *
>
> Also, could you or someone who has worked with you on the important issues
> over these past many months, a draft of a short new set of comments--
> perhaps based on the January 2025 one you shared and addressing the newest
> questions.
>
> You could lay out a path for NCSG to follow and we would very much
> appreciate it!
>
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
> On 5/12/2025 4:50 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
>
> Dear Kathy,
> Thank you for bringing this concern up. Previously, we have made efforts
> to explain the continuous improvement process group's work on the mailing
> list, and we had a few members participate and share their positions on the
> process.  We have passed the public comments period for this group's work.
> NCSG wrote a comment.
>
> The NCUC has indicated that we are to support the process, especially that
> SO and ACs should be accountable to their members and the community as
> indicated by ICANN's bylaws. We influenced the final state of the five
> principles.
> The concern we shared was in respect of duplication of effort between CIP
> CCG and the Pilot Holistic Review Team.
> During the process, the GNSO also adopted an approach to align the
> different stakeholder Groups (SGs) on the CIP CCG, which is running
> concurrently. This was done to ensure CIP CCG and the Pilot Holistic Review
> Team's efforts consolidate with each other and agree on the 5 principles of
> the continuous improvement framework.
>
>
> The *CIP-CCG *was formed to review whether the Continuous Improvement
> Program Framework is fit for purpose for each Supporting Organization,
> Advisory Committee, and the Nominating Committee.
> The Continuous Improvement Program Framework will strengthen the existing
> culture of continuous improvement while enabling the community groups to
> identify areas for improvement and work toward these improvements in a way
> that works for them. By adopting the proposed framework, the community
> groups can do what makes sense for them while maintaining accountability to
> their stakeholders and transparency to the ICANN community,
> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/continuous-improvement-program-framework-21-11-2024
> .
>
> After months of work and community engagement, there was a public call for
> comments, and NCSG made a comment as well as indicated here in the draft
> document
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XD1et1aNM4i-6d0-Vklx1iY-AcPx0UN6TDnJE4rcxPI/edit?tab=t.0
>
> The questions asked by the public comments are these below:
>
> *Question 1*. Whether the Continuous Improvement Program Framework is fit
> for purpose to evolve Organizational Reviews led by Independent Examiners
> into a Continuous Improvement Program led by the ICANN community, to inform
> the eventual Holistic Review
>
> * a.* Do you agree with the five principles, based on the current
> Organizational Review objectives described in the ICANN Bylaws, to apply
> across the organizational structures (SOs, ACs, and the NomCom)?
> *Question 2*. Agreement for the Continuous Improvement Program Framework
> to be adopted by each SO, AC, and the NomCom:
> * a*.Do you agree with the plan for the next steps to carry the
> Continuous Improvement Program out in two, 3-year assessment periods?
>
> This was a final call to encourage anyone who may still have any
> opinion on the issue to have an opportunity to add their voice to the
> conversation, it will also help our representatives to have some points to
> discuss at the next meeting.
>
> I hope I answered the questions, I am willing to explain further without
> boring you with too much information.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Benjamin
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 3:48 PM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Benjamin and anyone else who has been participating in this process,
>>
>> Often our leaders (and those who are following an issue) lead the writing
>> of the comments. You are the ones who know what was discussed and debated,
>> what tentative decisions and new proposals are controversial, and where are
>> the rough edges that our comments can help to smooth.
>>
>> It is very difficult from someone completely outside the process to come
>> in "cold" and draft comments.
>>
>> *Benjamin, I ask you and others involved with the CIP CCG:  What do you
>> like? What concerns you?  As people involved in this process, what issues
>> would be helped by an NCUC comment?*
>>
>> Best and many tx, Kathy
>> On 5/9/2025 1:43 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for cross-posting, I just want to bring this to your attention.
>>
>> I want to encourage members to review the  CIP CCG (Continuous
>> Improvement Process Cross-Community Group) for any additional comments
>> you may wish to add directly to the Public Comment Response Tracker
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiMGcNFESEJxvisbc6wcIA2l-G9pPOEELmz1B0CSEUg/edit?gid=1643030715*gid=1643030715__;Iw!!PtGJab4!6a5k3apVyYAzAXwbvk1_bXwLqh1_da70xDCL_UhHwZ108jtsPlSiBWLWg048vgSL8HQkBi8wf6tB2l2rkTpRiJFbow$>
>> .
>>
>> It only requires a short time to review all the feedback received and
>> documented.
>>
>> Have your final say on the process and help us to report your
>> contributions at the next meeting.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:21 PM Caleb Ogundele <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>> This is a follow-up regarding the previous update on the ongoing work in
>>> the CIP CCG (Continuous Improvement Process Cross-Community Group).
>>> As progress continues, the latest staff email (included in the thread
>>> below) indicates that we are now at the final feedback stage. There are two
>>> ways to provide input:
>>>
>>> For collective feedback, please reach out so that we can incorporate
>>> your input in the comment tracker before the final text is drafted.
>>>
>>> This community consultation process aims to ensure everyone is included
>>> before finalizing the verbiage. We welcome your contributions and thoughts
>>> on this matter.
>>>
>>> Special thanks to those who have already shared their insights, and
>>> particular appreciation to Pedro de Perdigão Lana for his excellent work
>>> during the Public Comment period.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> *Caleb Ogundele *
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Jessica Puccio via cip-ccg <cip-ccg at icann.org>
>>> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:20 AM
>>> Subject: [cip-ccg] Meeting Follow-Up & Next Steps | Next Meeting 14 May
>>> 2025 @ 14 UTC
>>> To: cip-ccg at icann.org <cip-ccg at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear CIP-CCG Members -
>>>
>>> On Wednesday we walked through feedback to Q2.a and welcome any final
>>> thoughts or revisions to the verbiage.  Any additional comments may be
>>> added directly to the Public Comment Response Tracker.
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiMGcNFESEJxvisbc6wcIA2l-G9pPOEELmz1B0CSEUg/edit?gid=1643030715*gid=1643030715__;Iw!!PtGJab4!6a5k3apVyYAzAXwbvk1_bXwLqh1_da70xDCL_UhHwZ108jtsPlSiBWLWg048vgSL8HQkBi8wf6tB2l2rkTpRiJFbow$>
>>> If no further concerns are raised by *07 May 2025*, we’ll proceed with
>>> drafting the final verbiage, as currently shown, for publication on the CIP-CCG
>>> community wiki <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/gveKBg>
>>> and in the Public Comment proceeding page
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/continuous-improvement-program-framework-21-11-2024>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> During the next call on *14 May 2025 at 14 UTC*, we will plan for
>>> *90-minutes* to discuss the framework document
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RCz6PJcA7Y32geWgxdDawqqFc7RU1juLaRNdhaG_pwY/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>> focusing on the sections where updates were suggested based on the Public
>>> Comment feedback and agreed to by the CIP-CIG. Please take the time to
>>> review the proposed updates prior to the next call. If time permits, we
>>> will continue our discussion of the appendix and the finalization of the
>>> framework.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We appreciate your time and consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jessica Puccio
>>>
>>> Sr Coordinator, Review Support and Accountability Projects
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN
>>> <http://www.icann.org/>)
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cip-ccg mailing list -- cip-ccg at icann.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to cip-ccg-leave at icann.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> --
> Kathy Kleiman
> Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20250514/8644f871/attachment.htm>