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@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 16:18 To: "gnso-ccoici@icann.org" <gnso-ccoici@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