Dear All,

A reminder to please review the updated language on page 8 that was developed following input from the RySG. For your convenience you find it reproduced here (in red the sentence that has been added):

1. Are you participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? The term “representative” in this context means that you are acting on behalf of a third party, whether it is a legal or a natural person (the ‘Represented Party’) by whom you have been appointed, specifically for this activity or to a role that encompasses this activity, to represented and/or advocate for the Represented Party’s interests, views and positions.

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, you must provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and must provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name as well as declare whether, to the best of your knowledge, that entity is actively participating or being represented in other GNSO SG/Cs/SO/Acs,, for example “I represent a Registry client who is also actively participating in the RySG”, “I am representing a governmental entity, who is also actively participating in the GAC” or “I represent a large brand holder in the entertainment sector who, to the best of my knowledge, is not actively participating or being represented in other ICANN groups”. If you are not able to provide these details or high-level description, you are assumed to participate on your own behalf or on behalf of the entity you listed as your current employer).

Please share your group’s feedback no later than the meeting that has been scheduled for 19 July.

Best regards,

Julie and Marika

From: GNSO-CCOICI <gnso-ccoici-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 15:10
To: "gnso-ccoici@icann.org" <gnso-ccoici@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-CCOICI] Action Items and Notes | CCOICI Meeting | Thursday 06 July at 1200 UTC

Dear CCOICI members,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting on Thursday, 06 July at 1200 UTC. Please see the relevant materials which can be found on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DRR1Cw.

Best regards,

Julie and Marika

HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS:

1. Staff to update the report to 1) delete the language about not participating in consensus calls (page 6); and 2) to insert the new language about only representing yourself/employer (page 8) – DONE: See attached.
2. CCOICI members to review pages 6 and 8 of the revised report (attached) and provide feedback to the group on the list not later than the meeting on 19 July.

Notes:

1. Welcome

2. Feedback from SG/Cs on compromise proposal

• Sebastien: RySG is not willing to budge. Chris Disspain’s view also was to counter the two assertions: 1) that by demanding transparency we would be limiting people from joining – we aren’t asking lawyers to disclose their clients as such, people can still participate as themselves (in their own name); more targeting an insider who is represented by several people in the room.  In the specific case of new applicants not wanting to disclose their own name, that is an edge case and we shouldn’t be building policy on it.
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: If RySG isn’t willing to budge that means going back to the status quo?
• Seb, RySG: We would like that removed – so no option to say “private”.
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: So they are representing themselves.  Is it possible to put this into text?
• Seb, RySG: Can share the spirit of our proposal in a suggested text.
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: What do others think?
• Marie, BC: Can’t really comment until I’ve seen it written down.  The BC has tried to seek compromise.  Looking at the stats the entire use of the exemption is an edge case. Confused how this would work in practice, but it seems like you wouldn’t have to disclose your client at all.
• Seb, RySG: Edge case was new applicants not disclosing.  The other issue is if we ask people to speak in their own capacity then you can’t be changing positions.
• Susan, IPC: Seems that this takes us back to the status quo.  Don’t see how this delivers more transparency.  Don’t see how this is better than the compromise. 
• Marika, staff: I think in the text, it would look something like this: “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, you are assumed to participate on your own behalf or on behalf of the entity you listed as your current employer).”  We can incorporate the text in the report.
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: We could still keep the whole request for disclosure and then add this text.
• Marika, staff: You would still ask them to describe and if they don’t then they are participating on behalf of yourself and your employer.
• Desiree, NomCom: How would we track if someone keeps changing his or her position?
• Marie, BC: Also a bit confused as to the idea if you're there for the mythical big player you'd change your mind in every meeting - wouldn't you in fact be more likely to be solid in your line then?
• Seb, RySG: Imagine a big player – if they don’t want to disclose then their position would have to be their own/employer – not whom they represent.
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: We can share this text with our groups since we are missing some people today.
• Marika, staff: Would we keep in the language about people not participating in consensus calls if they don’t disclose?
• Seb, RySG: We wouldn’t include it – hard to say who would make that ruling and what would be the guidelines?
• Manju, NCSG/Chair: Confirm that you would delete the language about not participating in consensus calls?
• Seb, RySG: For the registries, yes.
• Manju: We still have to go back to our groups to consider – perhaps for two weeks.  We’ll schedule on the 19^th of July at the same time.

3. Next Steps

• Schedule a call for Wednesday, 19 July at 1200 UTC.
• After the CCOICI finishes this work since this was a pilot project the Council will ask the CCOICI how the work can be improved.

ACTION ITEMS:

3. Staff to update the report to 1) delete the language about not participating in consensus calls (page 6); and 2) to insert the new language about only representing yourself/employer (page 8) – DONE: See attached.
4. CCOICI members to review pages 6 and 8 of the revised report (attached) and provide feedback to the group on the list not later than the meeting on 19 July.