Dear all, Sorry for the cross posting, but I believe that this post is relevant not only for EURALO, but also for At-Large, as there might be different views about the SoIs. I am checking if all EURALO Individual Members do have a valid SoI, and in this process I have found a couple of interesting issues. Some of our members have compiled the At-Large SOI at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+SOIs+Workspace, while others have compiled the GNSO SOI at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs. Actually, a few have compiled both. There are differences between the two, as the GNSO SOI asks about constituencies while the At-Large SOI asks details about the ALS affiliation. My personal opinion is that the At-Large one is a better one to fully disclose potential conflict of interest of individual members, but I wonder whether it is an overkill to ask people who already have a GNSO SOI to compile a new one in the At-Large format. Looking at the UIM-WP recommendations, point 4 of the "Criteria for RALO Individual Member Acceptance" reads: 4. A RALO Individual Member must submit a Statement of Interest (SoI) - see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+SOIs+Workspace for reference So the At-Large SOI is given “for reference”, but nowhere in the recommendation is stated that it must be the one to be compiled. What is the correct interpretation of the rule? Additionally, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have an ICANN SOI, valid for all stakeholders, that has all the relevant questions (of course, the person submitting the SoI will leave blank the parts that do not apply for his/her situation)? Looking forward to hearing your opinion and/or what is the formal rule, if one exists. Cheers, Roberto