March 2022 - GNSO-SOI-TF - lists.icann.org

Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 14 March 2022 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting Monday, 14 March at 13:00 UTC Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a draft outreach letter for the TF members to review as a Google doc. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc for TF members to contribute to a list of questions to pose to ICANN Org Legal staff. Notes: 1. Welcome a. Volunteer(s) to lead the TF * Still looking for a volunteer to Chair the TF. * Please send any nominations to the list or respond on the list if there are objections to staff leading the TF. * Staff can run the meeting procedurally, although from a staff point of view it is preferable to have the community run the TF. * The group has suggested that it is acceptable for staff to lead the group with the understanding that the TF members will speak up if there are any concerns. 2. TF Outreach - “As part of this process, the Task Force is expected to solicit input from the ICANN community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements at an early stage of the process”. a. TF to consider best way to solicit this input. Some of the possible approaches include, amongst others: public comment forum; request for input sent to relevant SO/AC/SG/Cs; webinar; survey * Example: Small Team on DNS abuse sent letters with questions requesting a direct response. * Could send inquiries asking groups how they use the SOI and any suggestions for changes. * What is the best way to get input and what are the questions to ask? What is the best way to get responses? * First step would target directed input from different communities w/in ICANN and then follow that with either a webinar or survey. * Also consider if there are other groups that use the SOI that aren’t part of the SOs and ACs. * SOI TF members should also represent their groups and could solicit input from their groups. * The ALAC uses the exact same version as the GNSO with slight differences. The SSAC and RSSAC also have SOIs but are more free form and specific to their groups. The ccNSO also has an SOI but it is tied to their participation on the Council. Developing an SOI similar to the GNSO. The GAC is the only group that doesn’t have an SOI. * Helpful to hear from these groups as to how they are using the SOIs and what affect might any changes to the SOI template have on them. * Question suggestion (poorly worded for sure): Should ICANN look at a requirement along the lines of legislation of to require disclosure of interests being represented in policy work at ICANN? * Should we look at how things are done at the backend – such as enforcement of the rules? Everything is on the table. * Could be helpful to include some of they issues the TF is considering, such as disclosure and confidentiality, as well as enforcement. How are these being handled in other groups. b. Confirm next steps * Staff could develop an outreach letter draft incorporating questions from the Google doc and asking how they use the SOI. * Once the draft is finalized, the TF should consider how much time is needed for responses and whether there should be a webinar as a follow on. ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a draft outreach letter for the TF members to review as a Google doc. 3. Review input received on assignment questions (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>) a. TF members to share input Question 1: Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report*, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? Personal suggestions from James Bladel: * Haven’t received informal input due to timing with ICANN73. * The SOI continues to be relevant, but has not kept pace with an evolving Community. * For example, many individuals and groups now observe or participate in multiple Stakeholder Groups, as well as ICANN bodies outside the GNSO. * While a posted SOI is a “general purpose” declaration, it may be desirable to require participants to make context-specific declarations that are applicable within a working group or PDP. * Additionally, community participation standards should reflect that volunteers should not make representations on behalf of other interest groups in which they participate, aside from the one that “officially” sent them to do the work Registry perspective from Karen Day: * Karen Day put out an inquiry but only received one response. * Believe this is still relevant yes, but there is confusion as how to interpret the statement “where a person’s or company’s interest might be a material factor to such work”. Perhaps it could be asked whether there is any existing public position by such person or company and if so, to provide a link? * Feeling of confusion both receiving them and responding on the material factor. The phrasing is confusing. b. TF comments / questions Discussion: * Had something called a “Declaration of Intent” but didn’t last as it was repetitive and cumbersome. Maybe check on the objective of that and any linkage * Staff can research the origin and intent of the “material factor” language. * Most of the members in groups are the organizational representatives. At least for the GNSO ICANN Org staff do not have any control over the membership of groups. So, when someone is asked what groups they belong to, some may vote in one group but observe in another. It could get complicated, particularly for enforcement. How to carry this out and by whom. * When the SOI was originally developed there wasn’t as much cross participation – how should this be reflected? * This TF cannot override any rules/procedures that groups have for their membership. * Most of us wouldn’t be here if we weren’t representing our organizations, but are also speaking on our behalf. We are trying to establish that the community should have higher standards for transparency and consistency. Focus on the transparency and consistency and leave the membership and enforcement to the Stakeholder Groups and Constituency. * Staff does check if someone isn’t recognized as a member of a group to the extent it’s possible. * It seems individual stakeholder groups might enforce/review based certain pieces of information(lobbying piece Karen mentioned)? Question 2: Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information** to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? Personal suggestions from James Bladel: * In addition to the response to Question #1 above, we should consider requiring paid consultants or legal advisors to disclose their client(s) when participating in working groups that create Consensus Policies or other obligations on Contracted Parties. Registry perspective from Karen Day: * Suggestion that #6 should be asked and answered in regard to the specific task/PDP/effort at hand. * For an extreme example, if there is a PDP On DNS Abuse, a Registry Representative could state that if there is a Consensus Policy requiring registries to do something this could add material costs to the operation of the registry (or something like that). b. TF comments / questions Discussion: * Support for paid consultants or legal advisors to disclose their clients. * How would we address non-disclosure agreements? Might find some middle ground – have people disclose based on what they are working on. Maybe not disclosing who the client is, but what are the client’s interests, such as the availability of closed generics in the next round. * Could staff consult with legal on confidentiality issues with disclosure. If we allow for confidentiality for lawyers then we’ll only see that level of participation. Need input on the specific question. * In Australia privilege applies when someone is seeking legal advice, but it doesn’t have to be. Could formulate a question for outreach on legal representation. * Note that associations have a mix of membership that might cross over groups so some transparency around their representation would be helpful. * Could be a more specific question in an SOI why they are specifically participating in this effort/WG. c. Confirm next steps * Maybe as a follow up we can formulate some questions on the list that the TF can ask ICANN Org Legal staff. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc for TF members to contribute to a list of questions to pose to ICANN Org Legal staff. 3. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Monday 28 March at 20.00 UTC)

1 0

Meeting Invitation | SOI Taskforce Meeting | Monday, 28 March 2022 at 20:00 UTC
by Devan Reed March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Monday, 28 March 2022 at 20:00 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/TgkiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5x3sh9hr Thank you, Kind regards, Devan

1 0

15 MINUTES **REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | SOI Taskforce Meeting | Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 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/TAkiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2d2em9p5 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2d2em9p5__;!!PtGJab4!uzmpP3N…> Thank you, Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Proposed Agenda - GNSO SOI Task Force Meeting on Monday 14 March
by Marika Konings March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Hi All, Please find hereby the proposed agenda for Monday’s meeting. Note that we are still looking for a volunteer to chair the TF. 1. Welcome * Volunteer(s) to lead the TF 2. TF Outreach - “As part of this process, the Task Force is expected to solicit input from the ICANN community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements at an early stage of the process”. * TF to consider best way to solicit this input. Some of the possible approaches include, amongst others: public comment forum; request for input sent to relevant SO/AC/SG/Cs; webinar; survey * Confirm next steps 3. Review input received on assignment questions (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit) * TF members to share input * TF comments / questions * Confirm next steps 4. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Monday 28 March at 20.00 UTC) 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: Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 11:26 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder SOI TF - please provide your input Reminder – By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. Thanks to those who have already provided their input, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 28 February 2022 at 22:11 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 28 February 2022 20:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC Action Items: By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. Notes: 1. Leadership of the TF: * James Bladel was nominated and the nomination was seconded. * Wait to see if this is acceptable or if there are other volunteers. 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>: * Not much input prior to this meeting. * Cover the input provided and discuss. * The point of the document is to get some initial input. Structure of the Google doc: * Questions 1-3 for Task Force input * How to obtain community input - question for TF input * Background info: Staff observations (from assignment form) * Background info: ANNEX A - Chapter 6.0: Statements of Interest Questions: 1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report*, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? 2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information** to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? 3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those already included in the requirements? Question 1: Input from the Business Constituency: * Currently, the SOI provides minimal information about the interests of a participant. Knowing where the person sits in the ICANN eco system is helpful but there are many competing interests and until you have worked with a person on a group you cannot be sure where their interests lie. * Adding a requirement for a high level description of material issues they, their employers or clients are interested in would be illustrative. Discussion: * One of the limitations that others have identified is the confidentiality aspect, and maybe there is a need for a mechanism for people to be more specific. * One of the concerns is that so many folks can claim to participate in so many different aspects of the GNSO it is not always clear for whom they are advocating. * SOI is still valid – may be better than nothing. But needs to be a way for people to be able to indicate whom they are representing when that changes with the context. * We could make disclosure requirements that could apply – there are parallels where those disclosures could be required (such as lobbying Congress and registration requirements). * How can we get disclosure requirements for lawyers who are representing various clients? How to make SOIs useful to the GNSO in general? Agree that lobbying registration requirements might be good to look at. * Wonder if the SOIs are even necessary and whether there is another way to approach the issue? Wonder how the information is being used. * Don’t think the SOI has dissuaded someone from joining a group. But could be an issue if the SOI is made more cumbersome. Question 2: Input from the Business Constituency: * Point 5 - I would change this question to plural to ensure that the answer provided pertains to all relationships the individual may have. It may be implied but it would make the question more clear. Could we require a separate SOI for each group/team a person works on? As a consultant I work on teams for differing reasons. * Some individuals/companies are members of several groups, constituencies or advisory committees. Is this disclosed in the SOI? Discussion: * Group may need to think about how specific the language should be to the GNSO. Some issues differentiating affiliations versus membership and how to make sure that those filling out from the ICANN world know how to complete the form. * Agreeing about the need for an SOI for each group/team a person works on. Need to think about how this would work in practice. Question 3: Input from the Business Constituency: * What enforcement is currently performed? If someone is not truthful on the SOI how is that determined? What actions can be taken? * Who reviews and ensures compliance? Discussion: * This is an important problem. * Staff recollection is that reminders for missing information/updates have been given. * Should be mechanisms in community guidelines or Ombudsman to compel someone or remove them from groups if their SOI is inaccurate. * There are provisions for inaccurate SOIs. See below. But don’t know if this has ever been used. * Staff is looking into a future platform based on the output from the recommendations coming out of the TF. * Given the distributed nature of the wiki, tracking down incomplete SOIs is resource intensive. For new enrollments the GNSO Secretariat will do a cursory review but have no information to validate or access to know who their clients are. They do check for completeness in which case they will ask for it to be updated. As for group representation, there is a wide grey area. We can have some feel for who is or isn’t a member, but don’t have direct access to the membership of stakeholders or constituencies to make a confirmation. * Seems backwards: everyone starts as an “observer’ and is promoted to “participant” when their SOI is complete. * But the enrollment form on new groups is set with an option to participate or observe, with makes the onboarding process smoother. But ICANN may consider a different enrollment platform, which would require you to complete your SOI before you could complete enrollment. * More complicated as the working group model has moved to more formal representation. ACTION ITEM: By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. 3. Next meeting: Monday, 14 March at 1300 UTC. ----- Language from the GNSO Operating Procedures concerning compliance: 6.4.2 Accuracy 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. 6.4.3 Appeal Process If concerns about the completeness and/or accuracy of a Statement of Interest persist after reasonable attempts are made to resolve them with the Relevant Party, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the applicable Chair and handled according to decision-making methodology and appeal process as prescribed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (ANNEX 1, Sections 3.6 and 3.7). At each step of the appeal process, every effort should be made to resolve the completeness and/or accuracy concerns by working cooperatively with the Relevant Party.

4 3

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | SOI Taskforce Meeting | Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland March 11, 2022

March 11, 2022

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 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/TAkiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2d2em9p5 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2d2em9p5__;!!PtGJab4!uzmpP3N…> Thank you, Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Reminder SOI TF - please provide your input
by Marika Konings March 10, 2022

March 10, 2022

Reminder – By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. Thanks to those who have already provided their input, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 28 February 2022 at 22:11 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 28 February 2022 20:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC Action Items: By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. Notes: 1. Leadership of the TF: * James Bladel was nominated and the nomination was seconded. * Wait to see if this is acceptable or if there are other volunteers. 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>: * Not much input prior to this meeting. * Cover the input provided and discuss. * The point of the document is to get some initial input. Structure of the Google doc: * Questions 1-3 for Task Force input * How to obtain community input - question for TF input * Background info: Staff observations (from assignment form) * Background info: ANNEX A - Chapter 6.0: Statements of Interest Questions: 1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report*, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? 2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information** to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? 3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those already included in the requirements? Question 1: Input from the Business Constituency: * Currently, the SOI provides minimal information about the interests of a participant. Knowing where the person sits in the ICANN eco system is helpful but there are many competing interests and until you have worked with a person on a group you cannot be sure where their interests lie. * Adding a requirement for a high level description of material issues they, their employers or clients are interested in would be illustrative. Discussion: * One of the limitations that others have identified is the confidentiality aspect, and maybe there is a need for a mechanism for people to be more specific. * One of the concerns is that so many folks can claim to participate in so many different aspects of the GNSO it is not always clear for whom they are advocating. * SOI is still valid – may be better than nothing. But needs to be a way for people to be able to indicate whom they are representing when that changes with the context. * We could make disclosure requirements that could apply – there are parallels where those disclosures could be required (such as lobbying Congress and registration requirements). * How can we get disclosure requirements for lawyers who are representing various clients? How to make SOIs useful to the GNSO in general? Agree that lobbying registration requirements might be good to look at. * Wonder if the SOIs are even necessary and whether there is another way to approach the issue? Wonder how the information is being used. * Don’t think the SOI has dissuaded someone from joining a group. But could be an issue if the SOI is made more cumbersome. Question 2: Input from the Business Constituency: * Point 5 - I would change this question to plural to ensure that the answer provided pertains to all relationships the individual may have. It may be implied but it would make the question more clear. Could we require a separate SOI for each group/team a person works on? As a consultant I work on teams for differing reasons. * Some individuals/companies are members of several groups, constituencies or advisory committees. Is this disclosed in the SOI? Discussion: * Group may need to think about how specific the language should be to the GNSO. Some issues differentiating affiliations versus membership and how to make sure that those filling out from the ICANN world know how to complete the form. * Agreeing about the need for an SOI for each group/team a person works on. Need to think about how this would work in practice. Question 3: Input from the Business Constituency: * What enforcement is currently performed? If someone is not truthful on the SOI how is that determined? What actions can be taken? * Who reviews and ensures compliance? Discussion: * This is an important problem. * Staff recollection is that reminders for missing information/updates have been given. * Should be mechanisms in community guidelines or Ombudsman to compel someone or remove them from groups if their SOI is inaccurate. * There are provisions for inaccurate SOIs. See below. But don’t know if this has ever been used. * Staff is looking into a future platform based on the output from the recommendations coming out of the TF. * Given the distributed nature of the wiki, tracking down incomplete SOIs is resource intensive. For new enrollments the GNSO Secretariat will do a cursory review but have no information to validate or access to know who their clients are. They do check for completeness in which case they will ask for it to be updated. As for group representation, there is a wide grey area. We can have some feel for who is or isn’t a member, but don’t have direct access to the membership of stakeholders or constituencies to make a confirmation. * Seems backwards: everyone starts as an “observer’ and is promoted to “participant” when their SOI is complete. * But the enrollment form on new groups is set with an option to participate or observe, with makes the onboarding process smoother. But ICANN may consider a different enrollment platform, which would require you to complete your SOI before you could complete enrollment. * More complicated as the working group model has moved to more formal representation. ACTION ITEM: By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6…>. 3. Next meeting: Monday, 14 March at 1300 UTC. ----- Language from the GNSO Operating Procedures concerning compliance: 6.4.2 Accuracy 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. 6.4.3 Appeal Process If concerns about the completeness and/or accuracy of a Statement of Interest persist after reasonable attempts are made to resolve them with the Relevant Party, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the applicable Chair and handled according to decision-making methodology and appeal process as prescribed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (ANNEX 1, Sections 3.6 and 3.7). At each step of the appeal process, every effort should be made to resolve the completeness and/or accuracy concerns by working cooperatively with the Relevant Party.

1 0

IMPORTANT - Session change ICANN73: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase
by Julie Bisland March 3, 2022

March 3, 2022

Dear all, ⚠️ Due to scheduling conflicts the ICANN73 session New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase will take place at a different time and date. ⚠️ Previously scheduled for Wednesday 9 March 2022 at 09:00 am local time (13:00 UTC), it will now take place on Monday 7 March 2022 at 12:30 local time (16:30 UTC). To update your calendars please follow the below steps: 1. Remove the entry for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase on Wednesday 9 March 2022 09:00 am local time. 2. If you had already selected the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase entry in your “My Agenda” on the ICANN73 website, you will not need to re-select it. You will however need to export that session once again to your own calendar. 3. Please refer to the attached “How to Get Organised” email to refresh your memories on how to download sessions! Please reach out to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you have any questions. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] [Ext] RE: Reminder: Please provide your input in the Google Doc by 24 February at the latest
by Marika Konings March 2, 2022

March 2, 2022

Thanks, Karen, for your feedback. We can definitely go ahead with the meeting if others also think it is helpful to discuss first with the group. Do you have any specific suggestions for what you think the group should discuss during the meeting later today? We can of course run through the google doc and the questions asked, but if there is anything further that you or others think is helpful, it would be good to know. Best regards, Marika From: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com> Date: Friday, 25 February 2022 at 15:29 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder: Please provide your input in the Google Doc by 24 February at the latest Hi Marika, Perhaps it’s just me, because I’ve been on vacation the past two weeks and my brain is not yet fully re-engaged and I also have not had time to engage with my stakeholder group, but I actually felt when looking at the document yesterday that it was very difficult to formulate my thoughts on these questions without first having a discussion with the group. Does anyone else feel like we would be better served to have the meeting and then formulate our inputs? Best, Karen RySG -- Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Principal Legal Specialist Tel: + 1 919 531 6016 ● karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Worldwide Headquarters ● Cary, NC www.sas.com [sas.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.sas.com/__;!!PtGJab4!uFPc4b07uj2Tnf2p…> SAS® … THE POWER TO KNOW® From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 09:00 AM To: gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder: Please provide your input in the Google Doc by 24 February at the latest EXTERNAL Hi All, We are just checking in. We have our next meeting scheduled for Monday 28 February but so far no one has provided any input on the questions in the google doc. Without input, it will be difficult to have a productive meeting. Could you please indicate whether it will be possible to share your input in the google doc prior to the meeting or whether we should consider rescheduling instead? Thanks, 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 February 2022 at 09:26 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] Reminder: Please provide your input in the Google Doc by 24 February at the latest Reminder, please provide your input by Thursday 24 February at the latest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com] [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>. Also, if you are interested to lead this effort, please share your interest with the list. 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, 8 February 2022 at 17:41 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] Action item: Please provide your input in the Google Doc by 24 February at the latest Dear All, Per the action items, the staff support team has gone ahead and created a google doc to facilitate your input and collaboration online: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com] [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>. Please note that the document contains the following sections: * Questions 1-3 for Task Force input * How to obtain community input - question for TF input * Background info: Staff observations (from assignment form) * Background info: ANNEX A - Chapter 6.0: Statements of Interest Per the other action item, we did check the PDP 3.0 and GNSO review related documents and did not come across any further specific input in relation to the GNSO SOI. Please provide your input on the questions for TF input by Thursday 24 February at the latest. Of course, TF should also feel encouraged to start further conversations here on the list or in the google doc. 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: Monday, 7 February 2022 at 16:35 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "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: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 07 Sept 2022 13:00 UTC Dear All, Thank you all for participating in the first meeting of the Task Force. We checked the calendar as well as upcoming DST and would like propose the following times / dates for the next set of meetings. Please note that the next meeting is proposed for 3 weeks from now to avoid a conflict with a Council leadership meeting as well as the US President’s Day holiday. By doing so, we also avoid conflict with ICANN73. If you have any concerns about the proposed dates and timing, please share these with the list as soon as possible. We appreciate everyone’s flexibility. Of course, the TF can review on an ongoing basis if meetings are necessary in light of progress that is made through online work and discussion. * Monday 28 February at 20.00 UTC * Monday 14 March at 13.00 UTC (North America will already have switched to DST which means the call will be one hour later for those affected by DST) * Monday 28 March at 20.00 UTC * Monday 11 April at 13.00 UTC. * Monday 25 April at 20.00 UTC Best regards, Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, 7 February 2022 at 15:14 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] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 07 Sept 2022 13:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 07 September 2022 at 13:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>. Kind regards, Marika and Julie Action Items: 1. TF members to consider whether to volunteer to lead the group. 2. Staff to look back at specific efforts such as the PDP 3.0, the GNSO review, or WS2 to see if there were other inputs on the SOIs. 3. Staff to set up a Google doc with the TF assignment questions and staff observations, as well as the text of the current SOI procedures to help capture comments. 4. Staff to schedule a meeting in two weeks and will look at 20:00 UTC as a possible rotating time with 13:00 UTC. Notes: 1. Introductions (see https://community.icann.org/x/NgAiCw [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>) * Thank you for volunteering to join this effort. * Interests in this topic from introductions: * New to ICANN and hope to bring some fresh eyes on the topic (Aimee Meacham). * Personal interest – SOI are of great use and they are a subject of some confusion with respect to their use and intent (Karen Day). * Personal interest – SOIs are a very important element to participation and think they are due for a refresh/update the process to ensure they are fit for purpose (James Bladel). * Find SOIs helpful (Susan Kawaguchi) * Find SOIs useful but there are some challenges with them – keeping them up to date and the level of information; developing a better understanding of what the expectation is. Need a process for weeding out the old and out-of-date SOIs. 2. Leadership – any volunteers to chair this effort? * Hoping that a TF member will volunteer to lead the effort. * Leader would work with staff to prepare the agendas. ACTION ITEM: TF members to consider whether to volunteer to lead the group. 3. TF Assignment – review TF assignment and determine next steps (see https://community.icann.org/x/NAAiCw [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>) * The CCOICI has oversight of this group; awaiting a volunteer to be the liaison between the CCOICI and the TF. * There is a specific chapter in the GNSO Operating Procedures. * Current SOI procedure came out of the 2008 improvements to replace the Declaration of Interest form. * This topic was discussed as part of the PDP 3.0 effort; a number of people pointed out that the SOI procedure is something that could benefit from a review. Decided to include the SOI review as part of the pilot for the Framework of Continuous Improvement. * Note that having an interest is not a impediment to participating in the GNSO; the SOI requires related interests only to be stated. * One question to consider: Who is responsible for ensuring updates and accuracy? Right now it is a requirement of the owner of the SOI. * Concerns raised about SOIs that aren’t being kept up to date. * Observation that there has been a swift to a more representative model – so consider the question of how useful SOIs are in a representative model. * Think they are even more relevant in the representative model tbh. SGs and Cs use them too to understand the interests of the colleagues they may be appointing to represent them. * SOIs are used in other parts of the community, so changes may impact other groups. Questions to be considered by the TF: 1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? 2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? 3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those already included in the requirements? 4. Based on the responses to question 1) and 2), what updates, if any, would need to be made to the GNSO Operating Procedures? 5. Based on the responses to 4), are there any updates that need to be made to the SOI wiki page and template, also considering from a privacy perspective whether the current set up provides sufficient safeguards (only those that are logged into the wiki are able to view SOI information). * As part of its deliberations, the TF should also consider how the SOI is used across the GNSO as well as outside of the GNSO as proposed changes could have a broader impact. The TF could also consider whether there is value in having different types of SOIs, for example, one that is specific to the GNSO and policy development, and others that may serve other purposes. * However, how the SOI is used outside of the GNSO is not within scope for the TF, although it will help inform the potential broader impact any potential changes to the SOI may have. * As part of its deliberations, the TF may also explore how SOIs or comparable approaches are used in other organizations to see if possible best practices can be identified and/or lessons learned. Membership: * a maximum of 2 representatives from each Constituency or Stakeholder Group1 and up to 2 alternates * 1 Council Committee liaison (ex-officio) Decision-making methodology: The Task Force should aim to make recommendations by full consensus. Divergent views can be documented and recorded. Timeline expectations: Although the TF will set its own work plan and schedule, it is expected that the timeframe for completing this assignment may take between 9-12 months. Assuming public comment may be helpful. Consultation expectations: * As part of this process, the Task Force is expected to solicit input from the ICANN community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements at an early stage of the process. * Also, if the TF recommends any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, these will need to go out for public comment before the GNSO Council can consider these for adoption. * The CCOICI has been working on changes to the WG Self-Assessment that will involve changing the Operating Procedures – suggest combining these with changes to the SOI procedures into one public comment. Discussion: * Good starting point are the questions and the staff observations. One question that we may need to consider first is how comfortable TF members are to undertake a top-bottom review or whether we want to just tweak the process. * There is no restriction on what the TF can recommend, although recommendations do have to be approved by the Council. * Maybe a starting point it might be helpful if we put the questions and the staff observations into a Google doc, starting with the original purpose and your views on what you think the current objective should be. * Question: Is there any other input that isn’t captured in the task assignment? Answer: Staff can look back at the PDP 3.0 process and GNSO review to see if there is other input. * Think about the outreach part of this effort and what would be helpful – a form could be developed? A survey? How to get the right kind of feedback. * Could go through the current SOI and express our concerns with it. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to look back at specific efforts such as the PDP 3.0, the GNSO review, or WS2 to see if there were other inputs on the SOIs. 2. Staff to set up a Google doc with the TF assignment questions and staff observations, as well as the text of the current SOI procedures to help capture comments. 4. Schedule and timing of future meetings – see current time zone spread https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20220131&p1=75&… [timeanddate.com] [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…> * Wide range of time zones: Very challenging to schedule meetings. Consider how to accommodate preferences – rotate or rely more on the mailing list. * Rotations could lose some people. * Might be helpful to focus on using Google docs and the mailing list. * For groups that have multiple members could have one as primary and one as alternate. * Could be more difficult if these are weekly meetings – better to have 2 meetings per month and focus on sharing thoughts on line. * There are some time slots that are possible, such as early morning in the US or late evening in Europe. * Consider also how the change to Daylight Saving Time in the US will affect meeting times. * We use 20:00 in another group. Is that any more palatable for the team here? ACTION ITEM: Staff to schedule a meeting in two weeks and will look at 20:00 UTC as a possible rotating time with 13:00 UTC.

3 2

ICANN73 Virtual Community Forum | Guidelines for Speakers
by Devan Reed March 1, 2022

March 1, 2022

Dear all, As we are just a week away from the ICANN73 Virtual Community Forum, the ICANN Language Services Team has created a document to serve as a guideline for speakers. As a reminder, GNSO-supported ICANN meetings do not use interpretation services. However, the reminders and pointers included are useful for all. Thank you! Kind regards, Devan

1 0