December 2022 - GNSO-SOI-TF

Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 7, 2022

Dec. 7, 2022

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting #14 Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS -- DUE BY 31 December 2022: 1. TF members from the IPC, BC, and RySG (and others as they wish) to consult with their members concerning how they deal with disclosures of clients/relationships in other contexts and suggest revisions if any to the following language: “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.’” 2. DUE BY INSERT: TF members to review the following language from the revised SOI to confirm that it provides sufficient flexibility: “The detailed questions will be made publicly available and may be reviewed and revised by the GNSO Council from time to time using its relevant processes.” 3. DUE BY INSERT: TF members to review the sample form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9yV2CguA7tcX7g_djhvzm-mUjTH0lStN…> to determine whether it provides sufficient guidance, or suggest any further materials or guidance that may be helpful 4. Staff to schedule a meeting the week of 09 January 2023 after considering whether there is a time of day that is more suitable for the various TF member time zones. Notes: 1. Welcome and SOIs * No updates to SOIs. * Susan Kawaguchi is listed as a member on the wiki, but she is no longer a member so we’ll get that updated. 2. Public Comment Review See the discussion table at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit%2…>. See also the comments in full at: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-stat…. Summary of Comments: * Staff prepared a discussion table (see link above) to help facilitate review of the comments. * Joint public comment periods on both changes to the SOI and to the WG Self-Assessment (by CCOICI). * Comments on requirement to disclose relationships – against allowing the “loophole”. * Suggestion that SOI questions should only be baseline questions. As currently foreseen the Operation Procedures would allow for that flexibility. * Sample SOI: Comments from Elizabeth Reed on the importance of guidance materials. Group has not completed those materials but agreed they would be helpful. a. Concerns to be addressed The new definitions proposed by the Task Force require a person participating in the Policy Development Process (PDP) as a paid or unpaid representative of another party to disclose who they are representing. This sounds great, however, while the proposed edits to the GNSO Operating Procedures reflect the amended definition for a “General Statement of Interest” and new “Activity Specific Statement of Interest” there remains an enormous loophole in the application of the recommendation in the Sample Statement of Interest<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9yV2CguA7tcX7g_djhvzm-mUjTH0lStN…> that renders that recommendation close to meaningless. In the proposed Sample Statement of Interest<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9yV2CguA7tcX7g_djhvzm-mUjTH0lStN…> form the loophole reads: “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.’” This exception would swallow the rule as a mere claim of attorney-client privilege or an ‘ethical’ obligation placed into a consulting contract would prevent this important disclosure and block the GNSO from achieving the transparency that should be fundamental to the multistakeholder policy development process and required in ICANN’s Bylaws. The loophole in Activity Specific SOI as applied in the Sample Statement of Interest form assumes, incorrectly, that there is some professional/ethical obligation that is somehow stronger than the normative OECD/EU/U.S. disclosure regimes. Common sense dictates that requiring disclosure in order to participate in an ICANN process wouldn’t violate a privilege any more than would similar requirements in the U.S. Congress or at the EU. For that matter, any arguments of attorney-client privilege are a red herring, as it ignores the fact that, at least under U.S. law<https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/19-50506/19-50506-202…>, client identities are generally not even considered covered by the privilege. See also practices by OECD<https://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/Lobbying-Brochure.pdf>, European Parliament <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0130_EN.html> and US Federal Requirements<https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html> which require disclosure, and if parties don’t disclose whom they represent, all the way to the source – up the chain, they should not participate. Discussion: * Talked about getting legal guidance on whether we can require disclosure, but didn’t do that. Think we should get some guidance on how we can align ourselves with international standards. Do agree that we should set a minimum standard: “Perhaps we have a baseline set of questions but give the WG leadership a discretion to require additional information specific to work chartered to them” (Susan and agreed by Karen) – Operating Procedures allows for flexibility in the questions and requirements for each WG. * Question: Is it sufficient to remove the language – no alternative path provided or “loophole” – “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.” Staff concern would be what kind of enforcement is expected here? * Hesitant to remove the language. Acknowledge the concern that it is a large loophole, but we did have an exception in the current SOI. Instead we could massage the language to make it clearer. * Current exception in the SOI was considered a weakness compared to the revised provision. How can we move forward – did people look at the other practices that were identified? Also reach out to your constituencies – how do they do that in working with other entities. Also, suggest revised language to suggest why these relationships cannot be disclosed. * With regard to the original language: Example was SubPro with such a lack of consensus because of entrenched interests. Is there some way to allow, when trying to find consensus, to require participants to disclose client to participate in a consensus call. * Isn’t it more knowing what their positioning/interest is? Does it matter who is the client? The question is what would be the harm in disclosing that? It also is required to disclose in other activities (EU, USG). * To address the comments should explain why this is different from disclosures in other contexts (EU/USG). Could get feedback from IPC, BC, and RySG on what they do and what types of guidance/examples to provide. * How much time would you need to get feedback? Maybe 2-3 weeks – bringing us to the end of the year. Provide feedback on the list and reconvene early next year. ACTION ITEM TF members from the IPC, BC, and RySG (and others as they wish) to consult with their members concerning how they deal with disclosures of clients/relationships in other contexts and suggest revisions if any to the following language: “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.’” b. Suggestion The SOI questions should only serve as a set of baseline questions, allowing the GNSO Council to add questions specific to the activities when it sees fit. ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the following language from the revised SOI to confirm that it provides sufficient flexibility: “The detailed questions will be made publicly available and may be reviewed and revised by the GNSO Council from time to time using its relevant processes.” c. Suggestion As someone new to the ICANN space, it's sometimes not clear what information the question is asking for. I believe this can be resolved with guidance material/examples being available. ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the sample form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9yV2CguA7tcX7g_djhvzm-mUjTH0lStN…> to determine whether it provides sufficient guidance, or suggest any further materials or guidance that may be helpful 3. Confirm next steps and next meeting (if necessary) * Schedule a meeting for early January 2023 at 1400 UTC or other time that works for the various time zones. ACTION ITEM: Staff to schedule a meeting the week of 09 January 2023 after considering whether there is a time of day that is more suitable for the various TF member time zones. 5. AOB: None

1 0

Post Call | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 07 December 2022
by Devan Reed Dec. 7, 2022

Dec. 7, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Statement of Interest Task Force call held on Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/14U-DQ> (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) For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-soi-tf/> and the main wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg> Thank you. Kind regards Devan

1 0

15 MINUTES REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | SOI Taskforce Meeting | Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Dec. 7, 2022

Dec. 7, 2022

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94092604895?pwd=Q2xoaEZwb1ZaUTkxdVJWdGJJZm1OQT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94092604895?pwd=Q2xoaEZw…> Meeting ID: 940 9260 4895 Passcode: tgV%6&8Sky One tap mobile +13126266799,,94092604895#,,,,*6566177428# US (Chicago) +19294362866,,94092604895#,,,,*6566177428# US (New York) Meeting ID: 940 9260 4895 Passcode: 6566177428 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/aeinfg0MP7 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/aeinfg0MP7__;!!PtGJab4!p…> 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 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/14U-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/326a973y<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/326a973y__;!!PtGJab4!9fEcRCc…> Thank you, Kind regards, Terri

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | SOI Taskforce Meeting | Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94092604895?pwd=Q2xoaEZwb1ZaUTkxdVJWdGJJZm1OQT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94092604895?pwd=Q2xoaEZw…> Meeting ID: 940 9260 4895 Passcode: tgV%6&8Sky One tap mobile +13126266799,,94092604895#,,,,*6566177428# US (Chicago) +19294362866,,94092604895#,,,,*6566177428# US (New York) Meeting ID: 940 9260 4895 Passcode: 6566177428 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/aeinfg0MP7 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/aeinfg0MP7__;!!PtGJab4!p…> 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 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/14U-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/326a973y<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/326a973y__;!!PtGJab4!9fEcRCc…> Thank you, Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] [Ext] RE: Public comment review
by Marika Konings Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

Hi Susan, Comment b) was provided by the NCSG. Note that as the comment was submitted late it is attached to the public comment report (see https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-co…) Comment c) was provided by Elizabeth Reed in response to the sample SOI survey that was made available as part of the public comment forum. Best regards, Marika From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 12:52 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Public comment review Hi Marika, could you clarify which public comment input b) and c) have come from please – or does this input come from elsewhere? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01D90973.B0A1E7F0][comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!72hUl0tDU6vDBU…> From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 05 December 2022 20:32 To: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Public comment review Reminder – please provide your input by Tuesday 6 December at the latest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…> Best regards, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 09:01 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Public comment review Dear All, The public comment forum has now closed. The staff support team has gathered the comments related to the SOI in the following discussion table: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>. Please also review the comments in full (see https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-stat…) In order to prepare for the TF’s review of the input received, please provide your input in the google doc table at the bottom indicating whether you support the suggestions made, and if so, how these should be addressed in the TF’s report. We propose to schedule a meeting for the task force on Wednesday 7 December at 14.00 UTC so please provide your input by Tuesday 6 December at the latest. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel via GNSO-SOI-TF" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>> Reply to: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Friday, 11 November 2022 at 18:51 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] SOI-TF CircleID post from Jon Nevett (PIR CEO) Colleagues - During last week’s Contracted Party House (CPH) Summit, I had a chance to catch up with a few folks who have been following our work. The team at Public Interest Registry (PIR, operator of .ORG) were very interested in our recommendations, and had some feedback on additional transparency measures we might consider. I believe they also plan to submit this as a Public Comment. Article here: https://circleid.com/posts/20221110-icann-policymaking-should-be-even-more-… [circleid.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/circleid.com/posts/20221110-icann-policy…> Thank you, J. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com__;!!PtGJab4!72hUl0tDU6vDBUN…>

1 0

Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Public comment review
by Marika Konings Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

Reminder – please provide your input by Tuesday 6 December at the latest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit Best regards, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 09:01 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Public comment review Dear All, The public comment forum has now closed. The staff support team has gathered the comments related to the SOI in the following discussion table: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>. Please also review the comments in full (see https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-stat…) In order to prepare for the TF’s review of the input received, please provide your input in the google doc table at the bottom indicating whether you support the suggestions made, and if so, how these should be addressed in the TF’s report. We propose to schedule a meeting for the task force on Wednesday 7 December at 14.00 UTC so please provide your input by Tuesday 6 December at the latest. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel via GNSO-SOI-TF" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Reply to: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Friday, 11 November 2022 at 18:51 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] SOI-TF CircleID post from Jon Nevett (PIR CEO) Colleagues - During last week’s Contracted Party House (CPH) Summit, I had a chance to catch up with a few folks who have been following our work. The team at Public Interest Registry (PIR, operator of .ORG) were very interested in our recommendations, and had some feedback on additional transparency measures we might consider. I believe they also plan to submit this as a Public Comment. Article here: https://circleid.com/posts/20221110-icann-policymaking-should-be-even-more-… [circleid.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/circleid.com/posts/20221110-icann-policy…> Thank you, J.

2 1