IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board
Hereunder, the advisory from Staff Support: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear IFR2 Team, The ICANN Board accepted all four recommendations made in the IFR2 Final Report at the 14 September Board meeting. The approved resolution can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> . Board approval was the final step before officially closing the IFR2. Congratulations on this achievement! Kind regards, Reda -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
thanks - also of interest, approved in the same Board meeting, is an update in the Code of Conduct for Statements of Interest. Among many other relevant improvements, it signals that consulting *is* expected to be disclosed; regular consulting contracts should not be under non-disclosure; and confidentiality should not be used to hide interests that affect the processes. Verbatim: " Interests are the connections that each participant brings to ICANN that positively contribute to ICANN’s work. Acknowledging interests is a proactive and positive endeavor, and the scope of each participant’s declared interest should be respected and valued. The obligation to fully disclose interests lies primarily with each individual participant. If an entity maintains engagements with multiple ICANN participants, including for the purpose of participating in different groups or on different issues across the ICANN community, that entity is strongly encouraged to confirm that each of its representatives are making full and proper disclosure. Regular consulting relationships or other engagements typically are not duty- bound to be maintained as confidential, and participants and their clients should not use contractual confidentiality terms in ways that shield the release of information about representation within ICANN processes." This formulation is particularly exigent on those participants whose main activity is in consulting, as the clients in this business may be affected by the decisions made within the ICANN processes (even having domain names registered creates an interest) or may be double-dipping through the consultant (e.g. a government or a regional organization which is represented in the GAC may be gaining a foothold in the At Large, GNSO, or the many working groups and task forces that contribute to the formation of ICANN policy. I encourage all LACRALO participants to be vigilant of the SoI's and EoI's that we encounter. Document in https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-particip... Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ________________________________ De: Carlton Samuels via lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org> Enviado: domingo, 21 de septiembre de 2025 07:47 p. m. Para: CPWG CC: LAC-Discuss-en Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board Hereunder, the advisory from Staff Support: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear IFR2 Team, The ICANN Board accepted all four recommendations made in the IFR2 Final Report at the 14 September Board meeting. The approved resolution can be found here<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...>. Board approval was the final step before officially closing the IFR2. Congratulations on this achievement! Kind regards, Reda -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
Alex, While I think the Code of Conduct for Statement of Interest was a step in the right direction, I do not think it went far enough. A couple of questions for you: Question #1: Should ICANN be required to maintain a list of all firms and individuals providing lobbying/advisory services to ICANN? The reason I use these two terms is that there emerged a distinction during the Obama administration regarding “lobbyists” and “advisors.” I personally think community members should be aware of the attendance of ICANN lobbyists/advisors at ICANN or other fora events if we are really focused in on maximizing openness and transparency. Question #2: In the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning Statements of Interest policy document it states that “all who participate in ICANN processes are required to disclose.” What in your opinion includes ICANN processes? I think we can agree that participating in a working group as part of a policy development process is clearly, an ICANN “process.” What about merely attending ICANN meetings? Does that rise to participating in ICANN processes? Or does participating in ICANN process only arise if that individual speaks publicly? Would you agree that to avoid any grey lines of ambiguity, anyone regular attends an ICANN (working group, meeting, event) should be required to complete a Statement of Interest? Best regards, Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:38 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Subject: [CPWG] Re: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board thanks - also of interest, approved in the same Board meeting, is an update in the Code of Conduct for Statements of Interest. Among many other relevant improvements, it signals that consulting *is* expected to be disclosed; regular consulting contracts should not be under non-disclosure; and confidentiality should not be used to hide interests that affect the processes. Verbatim: " Interests are the connections that each participant brings to ICANN that positively contribute to ICANN’s work. Acknowledging interests is a proactive and positive endeavor, and the scope of each participant’s declared interest should be respected and valued. The obligation to fully disclose interests lies primarily with each individual participant. If an entity maintains engagements with multiple ICANN participants, including for the purpose of participating in different groups or on different issues across the ICANN community, that entity is strongly encouraged to confirm that each of its representatives are making full and proper disclosure. Regular consulting relationships or other engagements typically are not duty- bound to be maintained as confidential, and participants and their clients should not use contractual confidentiality terms in ways that shield the release of information about representation within ICANN processes." This formulation is particularly exigent on those participants whose main activity is in consulting, as the clients in this business may be affected by the decisions made within the ICANN processes (even having domain names registered creates an interest) or may be double-dipping through the consultant (e.g. a government or a regional organization which is represented in the GAC may be gaining a foothold in the At Large, GNSO, or the many working groups and task forces that contribute to the formation of ICANN policy. I encourage all LACRALO participants to be vigilant of the SoI's and EoI's that we encounter. Document in https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-particip... Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ________________________________ De: Carlton Samuels via lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org> Enviado: domingo, 21 de septiembre de 2025 07:47 p. m. Para: CPWG CC: LAC-Discuss-en Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board Hereunder, the advisory from Staff Support: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear IFR2 Team, The ICANN Board accepted all four recommendations made in the IFR2 Final Report at the 14 September Board meeting. The approved resolution can be found here<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...>. Board approval was the final step before officially closing the IFR2. Congratulations on this achievement! Kind regards, Reda -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
Hey, if we think we’re gonna get a discussion going on this, how about we move it over the the OFB list? Thanks. From: michael palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 10:03 AM To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Subject: [CPWG] Re: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board Alex, While I think the Code of Conduct for Statement of Interest was a step in the right direction, I do not think it went far enough. A couple of questions for you: Question #1: Should ICANN be required to maintain a list of all firms and individuals providing lobbying/advisory services to ICANN? The reason I use these two terms is that there emerged a distinction during the Obama administration regarding “lobbyists” and “advisors.” I personally think community members should be aware of the attendance of ICANN lobbyists/advisors at ICANN or other fora events if we are really focused in on maximizing openness and transparency. Question #2: In the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning Statements of Interest policy document it states that “all who participate in ICANN processes are required to disclose.” What in your opinion includes ICANN processes? I think we can agree that participating in a working group as part of a policy development process is clearly, an ICANN “process.” What about merely attending ICANN meetings? Does that rise to participating in ICANN processes? Or does participating in ICANN process only arise if that individual speaks publicly? Would you agree that to avoid any grey lines of ambiguity, anyone regular attends an ICANN (working group, meeting, event) should be required to complete a Statement of Interest? Best regards, Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:38 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> Subject: [CPWG] Re: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board thanks - also of interest, approved in the same Board meeting, is an update in the Code of Conduct for Statements of Interest. Among many other relevant improvements, it signals that consulting *is* expected to be disclosed; regular consulting contracts should not be under non-disclosure; and confidentiality should not be used to hide interests that affect the processes. Verbatim: " Interests are the connections that each participant brings to ICANN that positively contribute to ICANN’s work. Acknowledging interests is a proactive and positive endeavor, and the scope of each participant’s declared interest should be respected and valued. The obligation to fully disclose interests lies primarily with each individual participant. If an entity maintains engagements with multiple ICANN participants, including for the purpose of participating in different groups or on different issues across the ICANN community, that entity is strongly encouraged to confirm that each of its representatives are making full and proper disclosure. Regular consulting relationships or other engagements typically are not duty- bound to be maintained as confidential, and participants and their clients should not use contractual confidentiality terms in ways that shield the release of information about representation within ICANN processes." This formulation is particularly exigent on those participants whose main activity is in consulting, as the clients in this business may be affected by the decisions made within the ICANN processes (even having domain names registered creates an interest) or may be double-dipping through the consultant (e.g. a government or a regional organization which is represented in the GAC may be gaining a foothold in the At Large, GNSO, or the many working groups and task forces that contribute to the formation of ICANN policy. I encourage all LACRALO participants to be vigilant of the SoI's and EoI's that we encounter. Document in https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-particip... Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ________________________________ De: Carlton Samuels via lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@icann.org>> Enviado: domingo, 21 de septiembre de 2025 07:47 p. m. Para: CPWG CC: LAC-Discuss-en Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] IFR2 Recommendations Approval By ICANN Board Hereunder, the advisory from Staff Support: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear IFR2 Team, The ICANN Board accepted all four recommendations made in the IFR2 Final Report at the 14 September Board meeting. The approved resolution can be found here<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...>. Board approval was the final step before officially closing the IFR2. Congratulations on this achievement! Kind regards, Reda -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Jonathan Zuck -
michael palage.com