Dear CCOICI members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s CCOICI meeting at ICANN77. 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. Schedule a meeting in early July or regroup. 2. Staff to create a graphic to show the current procedure compared to the future procedure. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. WG comments on the draft CCOICI Recommendations Report on the review of the SOI requirements: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvDU-dmKXF1LY0iXJCWes0B6_JilEWcA/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1WvDU-dmKXF1LY0iXJCWes0B6_JilEWcA/edit__;!!PtGJab4!6EUGGVDVk9CL5PqeXldoHBuLiIGRQ-RZQKBBf8KcXjRncLzrAdul1ePLbH7BHNQK7KXRYnIe-z3y1vWZAAkXFDGLrnSIkotANqo$>. Note that the new content reflecting the CCOICI deliberations and consideration of additional safeguards can be found in chapters 1 and 2. Chapters 3 and 4 reproduce the recommendations of the SOI TF. * Manju: NCSG supports the compromise. * Antonia, RrSG: Still don’t support. * Thomas, ISPCP: Doesn’t go far enough. Not strict enough. Also state before each meeting. * Desiree, NomCom: Haven’t discussed individuals who can’t disclose because of NDAs. But could disclose in other words. Don’t make a decision right now because there are concerns. Almost impossible to participate in ICANN without interests. Would like to see more options for disclosure. * Marie, BC: The exemption has been there. Not sure we should exclude for such a limited reason. If we have the representative model you are there as a rep. Plus this is self-policing. BC is in support of the compromise. * Susan, IPC: Not a lot of input so not sure there is an IPC view. Also concern about how it would work if we have this time of exclusion; what would be the ground rules. * Seb, RySG: Haven’t had much time to socialize, so need more time. The key is transparency. Even without the power to vote you still have influence. Could still try to find an alternative. * Thomas, ISPCP: Think we should say no to the compromise. * Marika, Staff: If this group doesn’t come to agreement then the status quo remains – and that is an exemption: you can just say, “private”. * Manju, NCSG: No is not something we can fall back on. * Thomas, ISPCP: Not saying no means making it more complicated. * Desiree, NomCom: We could make it more restrictive. * Marika, Staff: The recommended changes are intended to increase transparency; not clear what we are trying to solve. * Susan, IPC: There are people who aren’t representing anyone specific but they can still have interests, or clients with specific interests with representation. * Seb, RySG: There are assumptions without specific documentation of a problem. * Marika, Staff: The suggestion was that governments could hire someone. * Thomas, ISPCP: Even if we make minor tweaks on the compromise we won’t get agreement. * Desiree, NomCom: We could put it back to the TF and ask them to make it stronger. * Marika, Staff: You could send it to Council but you would probably get the same positions. Can’t implement the rest without that change and no one wants the status quo. Also do you want to force a vote when you know there is disagreement. * Marie, BC: What we’ve come up with will restrict, tighten, protect. We can say that this will take us further. * Marika, Staff: We did build in a review to see how it is working. Could we present it that way to the groups. You also can call someone out if there SOI doesn’t seen to be accurate/truthful. Even if you take out the exemption they don’t really have to. * Marie, BC: Could put in that that metric (how often the exemption is used) has to be captured. * Thomas, ISPCP: You could have a legitimate reason not to disclose. * Susan, IPC: Under the recommendations you are getting more information than previously. * Marika, Staff: We are creating restrictions – excluding people -- without being to point to a specific, documented problem. * Thomas, ISPCP: Could compare this to the end of vertical integration restrictions. * Marie, BC: There’s all this suspicion/angst but no proof. * Seb, RySG: There is one very large entity that stays quiet but seems to have representatives in all groups. But don’t know if it’s a problem or not. Using a hammer that is too powerful. * Susan, IPC: If you look at those large companies they aren’t claiming the private exemption. They don’t think it applies. * Juan Manuel, NPOC: On a specific subject they may have an interest and should recuse, but don’t. * Thomas, ISPCP: Undo government interest; someone who doesn’t disclose but doesn’t claim the exemption; applicants; might represent minorities who might be jeopardized if disclosed – others? * Susan, IPC: New SOI makes it easier to disclose if you need to do it sometimes, and sometimes not. * Thomas, ISPCP: Could disclose to the chair or the Ombuds. * Seb, RySG: Might be a path to disclose to the Ombuds and he can make the call. * Thomas, ISPCP: Wouldn’t help if someone can’t disclose for NDA/ethical – but could for an applicant or minority. * Marie, BC: So what happens if the Ombuds raises concerns – then the person could be excluded and not trusted. * Marika, Staff: But are we making it complicated when there is no issue and now even less so. * Manju, NCSG: The fact that the numbers are so low – new language is not going to stop people from lying. * Seb, RySG: Need two work weeks. * Desiree, NomCom: Helpful to see a graphic of what we have now and what it will be. * Marika, Staff: Reconvene on 05 July after socializing how it works now, and what it will be – create a graphic. 3. Next Steps: 1. Schedule a meeting in early July or regroup. 2. Staff to create a graphic to show the current procedure compared to the future procedure.