May 2023 - GNSO-CCOICI - lists.icann.org

ICANN77 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download!
by Julie Bisland 30 May '23

30 May '23

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN77 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!9ZW…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Correction Re: Action Items and Notes | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday 25 May at 12:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 25 May '23

25 May '23

Dear CCOICI members, Please see the helpful and important correction to the notes from Manju indicated in red below. The wiki page also has been updated. Kind regards, Julie From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 9:29 AM To: "gnso-ccoici(a)icann.org" <gnso-ccoici(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] Action Items and Notes | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday 25 May at 12:00 UTC Dear CCOICI members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DRR1Cw. Best regards, Ariel, Julie and Marika HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to incorporate the compromise proposal language and related points into the draft Report to the Council, ideally before ICANN77. 2. Members to bring back to their groups and discuss further during ICANN77. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Task Force Recommendations Report (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html): from the GNSO Framework for Continues Improvement: “Where full consensus is not achieved, the report/recommendations to the GNSO Committee and/or GNSO Council should clearly outline the efforts that were undertaken to try and achieve full consensus and the reasons for why this was not achieved”. The TF achieved full consensus on all but one essential element, namely whether there should be an exemption from disclosing who someone is representing in the case of professional ethical obligations that would prevent such disclosure. a. CCOICI feedback: * Any further questions/comments about current requirements and existing safeguards? * Any further questions/comments about SOI TF recommendations report and views on exemption provision? * What are we trying to solve for? b. Discuss alternative proposal - WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process. Is this a possible path forward? * If yes, what would this look like in practice (e.g. is this something that would be captured in the SOI, in the WG Charter, Operating Procedures * If no, which other alternatives should be considered? Discussion: * Marie, BC: Took this back to the BC – think that this is a problem that doesn’t exist. Re: the compromise proposal -- Concern about balance since it’s such a minute selection of members. Seems to be an unnecessary constraint. * Manju, Chair: Should not be a problem in the representative model, which is most common lately. * Marika, staff: What we’ve seen that most PDPs are a working group model, so not an issue. One potential approach is to explain in the report that the Council already can specify in the charter who can participate in a consensus call. Move this conversation to the chartering conversation. Also, the chair of the WG can go back to the Council. Don’t seem to have a large number of WG members now who are invoking this. Could check back after the current large PDPs, such as RPMs. * Manju, Chair: We already have existing safeguards in the chartering process; then there also is the review mechanism. * Thomas, ISPCP: Think it’s a good point with the charter; also may be different with ICANN Join. People could be representing many different groups. Might want to discuss the best place information can be disclosed. Goal is to remove ambiguity and also reduce the burden on the chair. Can write it into the charter that if you choose the exemption then you can’t participate in the consensus call. * Manju, Chair: We can differentiate with the two types of SOI – activity specific and general. * Susan, IPC: Did consult my group but didn’t get a huge reaction. One reaction was that wouldn’t be comfortable with the chair determining non-participation in consensus calls unless the criteria was very clear and was applied across the board – applied to all who choose the exemption. * Manju, Chair: Feel that we have the safeguards we need with the charter and chair discretion. Also note that there is no enforcement mechanism for the SOI – it is an honor system. On the alternative proposal: people don’t seem to be strongly against this. What would this look like – included in the charter. c. Confirm next steps Suggested for the Report to Council: 1. Add text to the report: “WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process.”; 2. Document the discussions; 3. Present the data collected; 4. Note that there is no enforcement; 5. Provide more details of how the alternative proposal would be applied – write into the charter/option the Council has available and include in the charter template; 6. Spell out some of the other safeguards – Council can review and take measures; 7. Could call out in the Operating Procedures, but that would provide for less flexibility – not sure it is a good fit; 8. Build in a review period/mechanism. Sooner rather than later – for example after five activities using SOIs. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to incorporate the compromise proposal language and related points into the draft Report to the Council, ideally before ICANN77. 2. Members to bring back to their groups and discuss further during ICANN77. 3. Confirm next meeting * Meet at ICANN77 for initial feedback. * Get a sign-up room (no remote access) for Thursday, 15 June at 15:30-16:30 EDT (local time), 19:30 UTC.

1 0

Post Call | CCOICI call | Thursday, 15 May 2023
by Terri Agnew 25 May '23

25 May '23

Dear all, All recordings for the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement call held on Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 12:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom Chat * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/JYMZCg>. Thank you. Kind regards Terri

1 0

Action Items and Notes | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday 25 May at 12:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 25 May '23

25 May '23

Dear CCOICI members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DRR1Cw. Best regards, Ariel, Julie and Marika HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to incorporate the compromise proposal language and related points into the draft Report to the Council, ideally before ICANN77. 2. Members to bring back to their groups and discuss further during ICANN77. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Task Force Recommendations Report (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html): from the GNSO Framework for Continues Improvement: “Where full consensus is not achieved, the report/recommendations to the GNSO Committee and/or GNSO Council should clearly outline the efforts that were undertaken to try and achieve full consensus and the reasons for why this was not achieved”. The TF achieved full consensus on all but one essential element, namely whether there should be an exemption from disclosing who someone is representing in the case of professional ethical obligations that would prevent such disclosure. a. CCOICI feedback: * Any further questions/comments about current requirements and existing safeguards? * Any further questions/comments about SOI TF recommendations report and views on exemption provision? * What are we trying to solve for? b. Discuss alternative proposal - WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process. Is this a possible path forward? * If yes, what would this look like in practice (e.g. is this something that would be captured in the SOI, in the WG Charter, Operating Procedures * If no, which other alternatives should be considered? Discussion: * Marie, BC: Took this back to the BC – think that this is a problem that doesn’t exist. Re: the compromise proposal -- Concern about balance since it’s such a minute selection of members. Seems to be an unnecessary constraint. * Manju, Chair: Should be a problem in the representative model, which is most common lately. * Marika, staff: What we’ve seen that most PDPs are a working group model, so not an issue. One potential approach is to explain in the report that the Council already can specify in the charter who can participate in a consensus call. Move this conversation to the chartering conversation. Also, the chair of the WG can go back to the Council. Don’t seem to have a large number of WG members now who are invoking this. Could check back after the current large PDPs, such as RPMs. * Manju, Chair: We already have existing safeguards in the chartering process; then there also is the review mechanism. * Thomas, ISPCP: Think it’s a good point with the charter; also may be different with ICANN Join. People could be representing many different groups. Might want to discuss the best place information can be disclosed. Goal is to remove ambiguity and also reduce the burden on the chair. Can write it into the charter that if you choose the exemption then you can’t participate in the consensus call. * Manju, Chair: We can differentiate with the two types of SOI – activity specific and general. * Susan, IPC: Did consult my group but didn’t get a huge reaction. One reaction was that wouldn’t be comfortable with the chair determining non-participation in consensus calls unless the criteria was very clear and was applied across the board – applied to all who choose the exemption. * Manju, Chair: Feel that we have the safeguards we need with the charter and chair discretion. Also note that there is no enforcement mechanism for the SOI – it is an honor system. On the alternative proposal: people don’t seem to be strongly against this. What would this look like – included in the charter. c. Confirm next steps Suggested for the Report to Council: 1. Add text to the report: “WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process.”; 2. Document the discussions; 3. Present the data collected; 4. Note that there is no enforcement; 5. Provide more details of how the alternative proposal would be applied – write into the charter/option the Council has available and include in the charter template; 6. Spell out some of the other safeguards – Council can review and take measures; 7. Could call out in the Operating Procedures, but that would provide for less flexibility – not sure it is a good fit; 8. Build in a review period/mechanism. Sooner rather than later – for example after five activities using SOIs. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to incorporate the compromise proposal language and related points into the draft Report to the Council, ideally before ICANN77. 2. Members to bring back to their groups and discuss further during ICANN77. 3. Confirm next meeting * Meet at ICANN77 for initial feedback. * Get a sign-up room (no remote access) for Thursday, 15 June at 15:30-16:30 EDT (local time), 19:30 UTC.

1 0

ICANN77 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland 25 May '23

25 May '23

Dear all, With ICANN77<https://meetings.icann.org/en/icann77> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. REGISTER NOW! DEADLINE TO REGISTER IS 07 June 2023! * Sign into Your ICANN Account or create an account here<https://account.icann.org/login>. * Register by selecting the Meeting Registration tile. * Click on the Registration link. Before creating your schedule, please read this page carefully: https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation. If participating on-site, please read the Health and Safety page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/77healthandsafety>. CREATE YOUR MEETING SCHEDULE * Access the ICANN77 schedule here<https://icann77.sched.com/>. The schedule shows up with blank circular radial buttons to the left of each session. Hover over the radial button and click “ADD TO MY SCHEDULE” or just click to add the checkmark. * Once you’ve selected all sessions, click the My Schedule link in the lower left corner or hover over your profile and select My Schedule. * Click the Phone icon * In the bottom section, “Export Calendar”, click the link next to “My Schedule”. When the .ics is exported, add it to the appropriate calendar. OR, after exporting, drag and drop the .ics file into your calendar. * Please remember, for security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. There will be no calendar invitations sent, as the meeting schedule allows you to download all sessions of interest to your individual calendars Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior. * Visit the Participation Tools page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN Meeting sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting Virtual Participation How-To Guide for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN77 Meeting Schedule<https://icann77.sched.com/> GNSO ICANN77 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/_oZXDg> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/nIJXDg> For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

ICANN77 CCOICI team
by ICANN Policy Calendar 25 May '23

25 May '23

Meeting: ICANN77 Sign-up room CCOICI Team Date/time: Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 15:30 EDT (19:30 UTC) for 30 minutes Room: TBD (will be updated few days before ICAN77) Reminder: * NO AUDIO VISUAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR SIGN-UP ROOMS. * No projection, microphones, audio system phone calls, or technical assistance is available for this meeting.

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 25 May '23

25 May '23

Dear all, The meeting of the CCOICI team will take place on Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 1 hour. Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96269931065?pwd=c0VKWkpMZHdNSlNSQkYrSG5MZmxQUT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/96269931065?pwd=c0VKWkpM…> Meeting ID: 962 6993 1065 Passcode: .&@z^zfSL1 One tap mobile +13126266799,,96269931065#,,,,*0702315261# US (Chicago) +19294362866,,96269931065#,,,,*0702315261# US (New York) Meeting ID: 962 6993 1065 Passcode: 0702315261 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ad6GAsKCUM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/ad6GAsKCUM__;!!PtGJab4!o…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> ALL: Before joining the call * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/34OCDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yxycjzwf [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yxycjzwf__;!!PtGJab4!4rx8zto…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

4 3

**Starting in 15 minutes | Meeting Invitation | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 25 May '23

25 May '23

**Starting in 15 minutes Dear all, The meeting of the CCOICI team will take place on Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 1 hour. Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96269931065?pwd=c0VKWkpMZHdNSlNSQkYrSG5MZmxQUT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/96269931065?pwd=c0VKWkpM…> Meeting ID: 962 6993 1065 Passcode: .&@z^zfSL1 One tap mobile +13126266799,,96269931065#,,,,*0702315261# US (Chicago) +19294362866,,96269931065#,,,,*0702315261# US (New York) Meeting ID: 962 6993 1065 Passcode: 0702315261 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ad6GAsKCUM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/ad6GAsKCUM__;!!PtGJab4!o…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> ALL: Before joining the call * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/34OCDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yxycjzwf [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yxycjzwf__;!!PtGJab4!4rx8zto…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CCOICI Meeting on Thursday 25 May at 12.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 24 May '23

24 May '23

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the CCOICI which is scheduled for Thursday 25 May at 12.00 UTC. Best regards, Julie & Marika Proposed Agenda - CCOICI Meeting on 25 May at 12:00 UTC 1. Welcome 2. SOI Task Force Recommendations Report (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html): from the GNSO Framework for Continues Improvement: “Where full consensus is not achieved, the report/recommendations to the GNSO Committee and/or GNSO Council should clearly outline the efforts that were undertaken to try and achieve full consensus and the reasons for why this was not achieved”. The TF achieved full consensus on all but one essential element, namely whether there should be an exemption from disclosing who someone is representing in the case of professional ethical obligations that would prevent such disclosure. * CCOICI feedback: * Any further questions/comments about current requirements and existing safeguards? * Any further questions/comments about SOI TF recommendations report and views on exemption provision? * What are we trying to solve for? * Discuss alternative proposal - WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process. Is this a possible path forward? * If yes, what would this look like in practice (e.g. is this something that would be captured in the SOI, in the WG Charter, Operating Procedures * If no, which other alternatives should be considered? * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm next meeting – to be confirmed

1 0

Action item reminder - FW: Notes and AIs from CCOICI meeting on Wednesday 10 May at 12.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 22 May '23

22 May '23

Reminder, please come prepared to the next meeting (Thursday 25 May at 12.00 UTC) to share the feedback from your respective groups regarding the additional information provided re: background, origin, safeguards, stats etc. (see slides attached) as well as the suggestion from Thomas Rickert that WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 16:18 To: "gnso-ccoici(a)icann.org" <gnso-ccoici(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] Notes and AIs from CCOICI meeting on Wednesday 10 May at 12.00 UTC Dear CCOICI members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DRR1Cw. Best regards, Ariel, Julie and Marika HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: Re: SOI Exemption -- Committee members to consult with their respective groups given the additional information provided re: background, origin, safeguards, stats etc. (see slides) as well as the suggestion from Thomas Rickert that WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process (depending on the WG model) and to be prepared for further discussion on the next call. Re: WS2 HR Impact -- Staff to submit the templates to the GNSO Council for consideration by Monday, 15 May for the meeting on Thursday, 25 May. Notes: 1. CCOICI Meeting Welcome * Susan Payne has joined the SubPro IRT; see: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Susan+Payne+SOI 2. SOI Task Force Recommendations Report (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html and attached): from the GNSO Framework for Continues Improvement: “Where full consensus is not achieved, the report/recommendations to the GNSO Committee and/or GNSO Council should clearly outline the efforts that were undertaken to try and achieve full consensus and the reasons for why this was not achieved”. The TF achieved full consensus on all but one essential element, namely whether there should be an exemption from disclosing who someone is representing in the case of professional ethical obligations that would prevent such disclosure. a. Taking a step back – see attached slides: i. What are the current exemption requirements? Created as a result of the 2014 review and allowed participants to declare interests. Task Force was asked if the SOI was still valid, but there were a number of issues that needed addressing. Namely, it’s not always clear what participant’s interests are and SOIs aren’t kept up to date. Current language: 10) Do you believe you are participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? If the answer is “Yes,” please provide the name of the represented individual or entity. (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please enter "Private"): ii. What did the SOI TF originally propose? “Are you participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? If the answer is “Yes,” please provide the name of the represented individual or entity. (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example “I represent a Registry client” or “I am representing a non-GNSO related entity”):” [Emphasis added.]. This is the language that went out for public comment. Comments received and the positions of the group indicate some support for the language and some non-support. iii. What changed? After public comment the TF added language on what it means to be a representative and further details concerning representation. See slides for details. NOTE: CCOICI members should review the SOI TF member positions that are included in the Annex of the Report. v. What other safeguards are currently in place? * Council can impose additional participant requirements as part of a charter, including statement of participation * From the GNSO WG Guidelines: “The Chair, in cooperation with the Secretariat and ICANN Staff, is continually expected to assess whether the WG has sufficiently broad representation, and if not, which groups should be approached to encourage participation. Similarly, if the Chair is of the opinion that there is over-representation to the point of capture, he/she should inform the Chartering Organization”. * Representational model * From the GNSO Operating Procedures: “Concerns raised by ICANN Staff or a member of the ICANN community about the accuracy of a Relevant Party’s Statement of Interest, including whether an interest that may affect the Relevant Party’s judgment with respect to a pending matter has been disclosed, shall be brought to the attention of the applicable Chair and handled pursuant to Paragraph 5.4.3.” b. What are we trying to solve for? PDP WG Total # of members Exemption invoked SubPro PDP 192 2 (4 maybes) RPM PDP 159 2 (3 maybes) The “Maybes” perhaps didn’t understand the question. In any case, very few selected the exemption option. c. What other approaches / information can the CCOICI consider to identify a path forward? d. Confirm next steps Discussion: * Question: these exemptions are not in the current soi form - so I wonder how are they included? Answer: The question is not in the existing SOI, but was proposed as a revision. * Marie Patullo, BC: Background is very helpful. The statistics from SubPro and RPMs suggest that we have a solution in search of a problem. And without the exemption we have people who might not be able to participate. * Sebastien Ducos, RySG: The statistical data suggest there is not the size of the problem that we were led to believe. * Manju: Staff clicked on every SOI to get the data. * Thomas Rickert, ISPCP: The numbers are small but still significant as to participation. Without the exemption, those individuals not declaring their representation (as they would not be able to do even to the chair) would be prevented from participating in the consensus call. * Marika, staff: This approach is accounted for in the representative model. Re: The numbers, there is the concern that someone would have to declare their client list, which is not the case. Might be worth asking those who selected the private option whether they would have done so with the new exemption language. * Marie Patullo, BC: I still think we are spending a lot of time to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Don’t think that someone who declares who they are representing at a high level (i.e., registry, brand, etc.) should be excluded from the Consensus Process. I don’t think this solves anything. I don’t understand what we are trying to solve. * Marika, staff: Emphasize that this is a self-policing system, although there is a process for challenging the accuracy of an SOI. * Thomas Rickert, ISPCP: Trying to avoid the risk of capture – such as several individuals representing the same entity without declaring it. * Manju: We get your point of trying to avoid capture. But note that this cannot happen under the representative model. The participant is representing his/her group. Know that we have to go back to our groups to consult. * Marika, staff: This about Thomas’ proposal – that participants invoking the exemption do not participate in the consensus call. Would this have to be written into the WG’s charter by the Council depending on the model adopted – give that it would not be necessary in the representative model? Think about what this could look like in practice. * Desiree Miloshevic, NomCom: A comment: e.g. if a chair does not have enough data to analyze the potential capture from the SOI or limit the “majority representation” participation from one entity - we can discuss in more detail Thomas’s proposal and/or what do escalation process are in place… ACTION ITEMS: Re: SOI Exemption -- Committee members to consult with their respective groups given the additional information provided re: background, origin, safeguards, stats etc. (see slides) as well as the suggestion from Thomas Rickert that WG members who choose the exemption might not be eligible to participate in the Consensus Process (depending on the WG model) and to be prepared for further discussion on the next call. 3. WS2 HR Impact – any input from CCOICI on templates circulated before these are shared with Council? See https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000316.html * All these documents are templates, so they do not restrict the information a WG or Council could consider. Just to help with some basic questions to frame the discussion. * Helpful to know if Committee members need more time to look at this or if it is ready to send to the Council, where you will have a chance also to comment? Document and motion deadline is Monday, 15 May. ACTION ITEM: Re: WS2 HR Impact -- Staff to submit the templates to the GNSO Council for consideration by Monday, 15 May for the meeting on Thursday, 25 May. 4. Confirm next meeting – Thursday 25 May at 12:00 UTC

1 0