January 2023 - GNSO-SOI-TF - lists.icann.org

For your review - updated SOI exemption language
by Marika Konings Jan. 26, 2023

Jan. 26, 2023

Dear All, Following yesterday’s meeting, the staff support team has taken a stab at updating the exemption language in line with the discussion, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit. Please review this language and take it back to your respective groups to see if this is an acceptable compromise factoring in the different views expressed. If you have any additional suggestions or proposed edits, you can include these in the form of comments in the google doc. If possible, please share your feedback well in advance of the next meeting which will be scheduled for Wednesday 15 February to allow for sufficient time for consideration and mailing list discussion. Thanks, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 18:41 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 25 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 25 January at 14.00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to revise the language to provide for general disclosure of the client without naming it, and further indicating whether the entity participates in other ICANN groups/processes; also to refine the examples. 2. SOI TF members to take the revised language back to their groups and provide feedback. 3. Secretariat staff to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 15 February at 14:00 UTC. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Review updated exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>) * From last call – make clear what “representative” means. * Some additional details re: exemptions with additional examples. Feedback/Discussion: * From Karen Day, RySG: In response to the edited language on exemptions – see attached. * Highest level the registries feel very, very strongly that there is not room for an exemption in the SOI process. Asked members in legal positions – there is nowhere that disclosure of a client with that client’s permission is prohibited. * Several example given of policy making, non-governmental organizations that have requirements for disclosure. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Seems that this disclosure is happening the “child” SOI – “by whom you have been appointed, specifically for this activity or as part of a larger engagement” * The language “as part of a larger engagement” is less clear, create ambiguity – either remove or change to “by whom you have been appointed to a role which encompasses this activity”. * Marika: Seems that “encompasses” could cover it. * James Bladel, RrSG: * Presented this to RrSG. * Generally agree with the RySG statement. * Exemption would seem to undermine the SOI process. * Could open potential scenarios organizations participating with a declared representative and multiple undeclared reps. * Undermines the ICANN goal of transparency. * If someone can’t participate because of the disclosure that’s the policy working as expected. * If there is a way we can address the concerns by tightening the language that is worth doing, but not with this exception. * Staff suggested action: Delete the language at the end in brackets and tighten the language to include, “by whom you have been appointed to a role which encompasses this activity”. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Only saw the RySG feedback yesterday, so IPC may need more time for comments. * Might be good to let the IPC respond more formally. * We are not the only group that has these concerns. * With respect to the RySG: Can’t compare governmental policy-making bodies and governmental lobbying group with ICANN participants. * IPC have this ethical obligation against disclosure, so being told they must disclose means they can’t participate. * Worth trying to breach this stalemate – need to look at the goal of this disclosure: Not necessary to know the entity – could know that it is a large brand owner for example, but not Disney; to know in general, their rationale. * Karen Day, RySG: * Would welcome more formal IPC feedback. * With regard to the feasible wording in the ICANN Bylaws, the RySG would agree that it’s not feasible to ask someone to violate ethics, but it is feasible to ask to get the consent of the person they are representing. If the client says no then the policy is working as expected. * Noted about getting at the intent – will bring that up with the RySG this afternoon. * James Bladel, RrSG: * Understand that any proposals have to be vetted by the groups. * Like the idea of declaring descriptor rather than the name of the client. * Also interesting to know whether the client doesn’t otherwise participate in ICANN groups. * Concerned that governments that are hostile to ICANN will participate by hiding behind a nondisclosure agreement. * Further refine the example and indicate whether the entity is participating in other SOs/ACs. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Not sure you can outright say that you know everything in which your client is engaging. * Might be able to find an example that is workable. Might be able to say, “to the best of your knowledge”. * James Bladel, RrSG: * The intent is to determine where there is more nefarious participation or actively working against a policy initiative. * Maybe say that I don’t have a contract with ICANN, nor am I seeking one. * I think we can all agree that we know this is already happening, but we shouldn’t determine that it is acceptable. * Don’t need to know the name of the entity, but in general what they are and whether they have or are seeking contracts with ICANN. * Karen Day, RySG: * Question: Do all groups have representation on the SOI TF? Answer: They do even if they aren’t participating in all meetings, they get the recordings and notes, and are on the mailing list. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Think it is unrealistic to expect representatives to have only one hat. * Even a contracted party could be both a registry and a registrar. * Nothing wrong with having multiple hats (clients representing) as long as this is clear. * James Bladel, RrSG: * One hat per group would be the expectation. * Prevent hat switching during a work stream. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to revise the language to provide for general disclosure of the client without naming it, and further indicating whether the entity participates in other ICANN groups/processes; also to refine the examples. 2. SOI TF members to take the revised language back to their groups and provide feedback. 3. Consider updates in the recommendations report * Updated to reflect public comments and TF deliberations. * Need to include language on exemptions. * Still need use cases or include in implementation. Susan – Still plan to provide examples. Karen – Depends on what we are asking for in the SOI, particularly the exemption language. Leave it up to you to decide whether or not to wait. * May need some transition between old and new SOIs. Discussion: * Question: Is there any more to make this more universal? Answer: This is a GNSO-specific effort, but ccNSO and ALAC may also be looking at it. Might be a conversation with the Board. * This gets to how other SOs/ACs participate in GNSO processes. * Maybe the opportunity to raise this when the time is right. * 4. Confirm next steps * Schedule the next meeting in 3 weeks to allow time for TF members to consult with their groups. * Schedule at the same time and day. ACTION ITEM: Secretariat staff to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 15 February at 14:00 UTC.

1 0

Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 15 February 2023
by Julie Bisland Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 15 February 2023 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/MwajDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/452ua77e Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Statement of Interest Task Force
by ICANN Policy Calendar Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

Meeting: Statement of Interest Task Force Date/Time: Wednesday, 15 February 2023 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/MwajDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/452ua77e

1 0

Post Call | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 25 January 2023
by Julie Bisland Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Statement of Interest Task Force call held on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/zwSBDQ> (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 Julie

1 0

Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 25 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 25 January at 14.00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to revise the language to provide for general disclosure of the client without naming it, and further indicating whether the entity participates in other ICANN groups/processes; also to refine the examples. 2. SOI TF members to take the revised language back to their groups and provide feedback. 3. Secretariat staff to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 15 February at 14:00 UTC. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Review updated exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>) * From last call – make clear what “representative” means. * Some additional details re: exemptions with additional examples. Feedback/Discussion: * From Karen Day, RySG: In response to the edited language on exemptions – see attached. * Highest level the registries feel very, very strongly that there is not room for an exemption in the SOI process. Asked members in legal positions – there is nowhere that disclosure of a client with that client’s permission is prohibited. * Several example given of policy making, non-governmental organizations that have requirements for disclosure. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Seems that this disclosure is happening the “child” SOI – “by whom you have been appointed, specifically for this activity or as part of a larger engagement” * The language “as part of a larger engagement” is less clear, create ambiguity – either remove or change to “by whom you have been appointed to a role which encompasses this activity”. * Marika: Seems that “encompasses” could cover it. * James Bladel, RrSG: * Presented this to RrSG. * Generally agree with the RySG statement. * Exemption would seem to undermine the SOI process. * Could open potential scenarios organizations participating with a declared representative and multiple undeclared reps. * Undermines the ICANN goal of transparency. * If someone can’t participate because of the disclosure that’s the policy working as expected. * If there is a way we can address the concerns by tightening the language that is worth doing, but not with this exception. * Staff suggested action: Delete the language at the end in brackets and tighten the language to include, “by whom you have been appointed to a role which encompasses this activity”. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Only saw the RySG feedback yesterday, so IPC may need more time for comments. * Might be good to let the IPC respond more formally. * We are not the only group that has these concerns. * With respect to the RySG: Can’t compare governmental policy-making bodies and governmental lobbying group with ICANN participants. * IPC have this ethical obligation against disclosure, so being told they must disclose means they can’t participate. * Worth trying to breach this stalemate – need to look at the goal of this disclosure: Not necessary to know the entity – could know that it is a large brand owner for example, but not Disney; to know in general, their rationale. * Karen Day, RySG: * Would welcome more formal IPC feedback. * With regard to the feasible wording in the ICANN Bylaws, the RySG would agree that it’s not feasible to ask someone to violate ethics, but it is feasible to ask to get the consent of the person they are representing. If the client says no then the policy is working as expected. * Noted about getting at the intent – will bring that up with the RySG this afternoon. * James Bladel, RrSG: * Understand that any proposals have to be vetted by the groups. * Like the idea of declaring descriptor rather than the name of the client. * Also interesting to know whether the client doesn’t otherwise participate in ICANN groups. * Concerned that governments that are hostile to ICANN will participate by hiding behind a nondisclosure agreement. * Further refine the example and indicate whether the entity is participating in other SOs/ACs. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Not sure you can outright say that you know everything in which your client is engaging. * Might be able to find an example that is workable. Might be able to say, “to the best of your knowledge”. * James Bladel, RrSG: * The intent is to determine where there is more nefarious participation or actively working against a policy initiative. * Maybe say that I don’t have a contract with ICANN, nor am I seeking one. * I think we can all agree that we know this is already happening, but we shouldn’t determine that it is acceptable. * Don’t need to know the name of the entity, but in general what they are and whether they have or are seeking contracts with ICANN. * Karen Day, RySG: * Question: Do all groups have representation on the SOI TF? Answer: They do even if they aren’t participating in all meetings, they get the recordings and notes, and are on the mailing list. * Susan Payne, IPC: * Think it is unrealistic to expect representatives to have only one hat. * Even a contracted party could be both a registry and a registrar. * Nothing wrong with having multiple hats (clients representing) as long as this is clear. * James Bladel, RrSG: * One hat per group would be the expectation. * Prevent hat switching during a work stream. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Staff to revise the language to provide for general disclosure of the client without naming it, and further indicating whether the entity participates in other ICANN groups/processes; also to refine the examples. 2. SOI TF members to take the revised language back to their groups and provide feedback. 3. Consider updates in the recommendations report * Updated to reflect public comments and TF deliberations. * Need to include language on exemptions. * Still need use cases or include in implementation. Susan – Still plan to provide examples. Karen – Depends on what we are asking for in the SOI, particularly the exemption language. Leave it up to you to decide whether or not to wait. * May need some transition between old and new SOIs. Discussion: * Question: Is there any more to make this more universal? Answer: This is a GNSO-specific effort, but ccNSO and ALAC may also be looking at it. Might be a conversation with the Board. * This gets to how other SOs/ACs participate in GNSO processes. * Maybe the opportunity to raise this when the time is right. * 4. Confirm next steps * Schedule the next meeting in 3 weeks to allow time for TF members to consult with their groups. * Schedule at the same time and day. ACTION ITEM: Secretariat staff to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, 15 February at 14:00 UTC.

1 0

**Starting now** Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 25 January 2023
by Julie Bisland Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

**Starting now** Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 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/zwSBDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc__;!!PtGJab4!5KRp-mI…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 25 January 2023
by Julie Bisland Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 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/zwSBDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc__;!!PtGJab4!5KRp-mI…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] For your review - updated exemption language
by Marika Konings Jan. 24, 2023

Jan. 24, 2023

Dear all, Hereby a reminder to review the updated exemption language in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. The proposed agenda for the meeting is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. Review updated exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit) 3. Consider updates in the recommendations report 4. Confirm next steps Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 15:16 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] For your review - updated exemption language Dear all, Per the action item below, the staff support team has modified the SOI exemption language in line with the discussions during the last meeting. You can find a redline version here for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>. Please provide any comments and/or proposed edits you may have in the form of comments to the document ahead of the next meeting which is scheduled for next Wednesday 25 January at 14.00 UTC. In addition, please find attached an updated version of the recommendations report in which we made some further updates on page 6 and 7. If you have any concerns or suggestions about these edits, or any other parts of the document that you believe require updating, please flag these on the list so we can add these as items for further discussion during next week’s meeting. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 January 2023 at 16:13 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 11 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 11 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 11 January at 14.00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI: Staff to draft revised language and provide to the TF on the list for review re: 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) more specific in the examples we provide. Consider whether there are other examples that may apply, such as the IETF. 2. Recommendations Report: Susan Payne, IPC to provide some use case examples. Other TF members are encourage to do so as well. See the sample google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRibJK8a8FQ8Df9CCClWuH_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRi…>. 3. Recommendations Report: Staff to revise the language referencing the pilot to indicate that testing may occur as part of implementation 4. Secretariat staff to schedule a meeting for 25 January at 1400 UTC. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Consider possible changes to the following language currently contained in the proposed updates to the SOI: “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.” (see also public comments submitted:https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>) Input from IPC, see also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>: * Concerned that if the client specifically instructs the attorney not to disclose its representation then the attorney might be ethically prohibited from doing so and that there are also more general ethical prohibitions on disclosing representation of a client without the client’s consent. See for example, from Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Confidentiality if Information, which is reflected in many state-specific rules of professional conduct: “A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.” * This is just the US, however, that there may be similar rules in other jurisdictions. Accordingly, I think that the wording "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'" must be retained or it potentially excludes attorneys from ICANN participation. * there is no definition of “representative”. The question seems straightforward in its face and probably is for non-lawyers. But for lawyers, maybe is not so clear. Its one thing if a client is asking an attorney to advocate for something specifically in his or her ICANN participation. But in the absence of that, does the current language mean that attorneys completing SOIs would have to disclose every client they represent generally? Not only is that problematic from an ethical perspective but also from a practical perspective. An attorney may have dozens or hundreds of people they represent. If an attorney at a firm does some brief work for another attorney’s client, does that qualify as “representing” and now the attorney must include that person or company in his or her SOI? That is completely unworkable. * Not a fair comparison to look at lobbying of organisations like the EU and USG. Lawyers acting for clients are not lobbyists. ICANN presents itself as not a govt and not a lobbying organisation * ICANN itself is quick to point out that it must comply with the law. Some attorneys (at least in US, but likely in other countries) have ethical rules which serve as a prohibition on disclosure. If they disregard they could be disbarred, so it’s not something they can negotiate * Forcing a lawyer to disclose or refuse to act unfairly discriminates against them * The language regarding disclosure in the SOI is also vague and open to interpretation. There is no definition of “representative”, and this may not be clearcut for a lawyer. How do they meet this and not run the risk of being accused of failure to disclose? It’s one thing if a client is asking an attorney to advocate for something specifically in his or her ICANN participation, but this is not always the case. E.g. are lawyers being asked to disclose everyone they work with (i.e. their client list?), because, for example, they are seeking to protect brand owner interests online generally? What disclosure are they supposed to make if they have one or more clients whose interests they are seeking to safeguard, but who are not paying them to participate? Discussion: * Seems the suggestion from the IPC is to leave the language as is, but provide a definition of “representative”. * Question: Is the ethical concern regarding the disclosure or because of conflicting/mutually exclusive requirements? Answer: It is the mutually exclusive requirements. ICANN requires disclosure to participate but the Bar Association does not, thus possibly excluding lawyers from participating. * Seems that the client could have the option to agree to disclosure. The client agreeing would remove the ethical problem but they do not have to. If the client said no then the representative couldn’t participate, thus discriminating against them. * Don’t think the intent of this proposal is to create a barrier to participation. The problem we are trying to address is those individuals who do not disclose whom they represent. Could produce a two-tiered system of participation – some who disclose and some who don’t. Putting the decision to disclose on the client could be an appropriate way to resolve the conflict. * Could narrow the language to make the disclosure more equitable. Current proposed 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.’” * Could make it more specific that people have to cite why they cannot comply. Provide some context. Could we also ask them to reference the professional rule/obligation that prevents disclosure? * If the client doesn’t respond or says no, that puts the representative in the position of not being able to serve their client by participating. * Could disclose in general, but not with specific details. * Seems to be some agreement to see if the current language can be strengthened by adding 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) be more specific in the examples we provide. * Is it sufficient to say that they represent a non-GNSO client? But how would we know? Also, some attorneys are representing multiple clients and switching hats. * Comes back to the definition of “representative”. ACTION ITEM: SOI: Staff to draft revised language and provide to the TF on the list for review re: 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) more specific in the examples we provide. Consider whether there are other examples that may apply, such as the IETF. 3. Confirm whether the following language to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures provides sufficient flexibility to make updates to the SOI as deemed necessary: “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”. (see also public comments submitted: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>) Comment from Susan: “b)I think we risk overburdening Council here if they have to start considering the SOI requirements for every activity. 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.” * Don’t think the intent is to overburden the Council, but to have baseline questions and those could be expanded if necessary depending on the situation. * Don’t think we need to make further changes. What is proposed doesn’t prevent the Council to put forward additional requirements. * Staff notes that there is agreement to confirm the language to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures. 4. Review updated version of Recommendations Report (see attached) and consider outstanding issues: * Will need to update the disclosure language once the group comes to agreement. a. SOI Samples Current language: “A number of use cases have been developed [to be completed following the public comment forum] by the TF that will serve as example / instructions for those completing the templates to provide the appropriate level of detail / information.” * No examples have been provided. Should staff make some suggestions or is this still to be provided by the TF. ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Susan Payne, IPC to provide some use case examples. Other TF members are encourage to do so as well. See the sample google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRibJK8a8FQ8Df9CCClWuH_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRi…>. b. Pilot * Had language about a pilot; instead we linked to a Google form for commenters to use to provide feedback, but there was limited participation. * Is this a suggestion for implementation – for a group to test it? * Revise this language to indicate that there may be a testing phase in implementation. ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Staff to revise the language referencing the pilot to indicate that testing may occur as part of implementation. 5. Confirm next steps * See action items above. * Schedule a meeting for 25 January. ACTION ITEM: Secretariat staff to schedule a meeting for 25 January at 1400 UTC.

2 1

REMINDER | Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 25 January 2023
by Devan Reed Jan. 24, 2023

Jan. 24, 2023

Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 25 January 2023 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/zwSBDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yz2u4jsc__;!!PtGJab4!5KRp-mI…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

For your review - updated exemption language
by Marika Konings Jan. 18, 2023

Jan. 18, 2023

Dear all, Per the action item below, the staff support team has modified the SOI exemption language in line with the discussions during the last meeting. You can find a redline version here for your review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit. Please provide any comments and/or proposed edits you may have in the form of comments to the document ahead of the next meeting which is scheduled for next Wednesday 25 January at 14.00 UTC. In addition, please find attached an updated version of the recommendations report in which we made some further updates on page 6 and 7. If you have any concerns or suggestions about these edits, or any other parts of the document that you believe require updating, please flag these on the list so we can add these as items for further discussion during next week’s meeting. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 January 2023 at 16:13 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 11 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 11 January 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 11 January at 14.00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI: Staff to draft revised language and provide to the TF on the list for review re: 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) more specific in the examples we provide. Consider whether there are other examples that may apply, such as the IETF. 2. Recommendations Report: Susan Payne, IPC to provide some use case examples. Other TF members are encourage to do so as well. See the sample google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRibJK8a8FQ8Df9CCClWuH_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRi…>. 3. Recommendations Report: Staff to revise the language referencing the pilot to indicate that testing may occur as part of implementation 4. Secretariat staff to schedule a meeting for 25 January at 1400 UTC. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Consider possible changes to the following language currently contained in the proposed updates to the SOI: “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.” (see also public comments submitted:https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>) Input from IPC, see also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit?u… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>: * Concerned that if the client specifically instructs the attorney not to disclose its representation then the attorney might be ethically prohibited from doing so and that there are also more general ethical prohibitions on disclosing representation of a client without the client’s consent. See for example, from Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Confidentiality if Information, which is reflected in many state-specific rules of professional conduct: “A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.” * This is just the US, however, that there may be similar rules in other jurisdictions. Accordingly, I think that the wording "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'" must be retained or it potentially excludes attorneys from ICANN participation. * there is no definition of “representative”. The question seems straightforward in its face and probably is for non-lawyers. But for lawyers, maybe is not so clear. Its one thing if a client is asking an attorney to advocate for something specifically in his or her ICANN participation. But in the absence of that, does the current language mean that attorneys completing SOIs would have to disclose every client they represent generally? Not only is that problematic from an ethical perspective but also from a practical perspective. An attorney may have dozens or hundreds of people they represent. If an attorney at a firm does some brief work for another attorney’s client, does that qualify as “representing” and now the attorney must include that person or company in his or her SOI? That is completely unworkable. * Not a fair comparison to look at lobbying of organisations like the EU and USG. Lawyers acting for clients are not lobbyists. ICANN presents itself as not a govt and not a lobbying organisation * ICANN itself is quick to point out that it must comply with the law. Some attorneys (at least in US, but likely in other countries) have ethical rules which serve as a prohibition on disclosure. If they disregard they could be disbarred, so it’s not something they can negotiate * Forcing a lawyer to disclose or refuse to act unfairly discriminates against them * The language regarding disclosure in the SOI is also vague and open to interpretation. There is no definition of “representative”, and this may not be clearcut for a lawyer. How do they meet this and not run the risk of being accused of failure to disclose? It’s one thing if a client is asking an attorney to advocate for something specifically in his or her ICANN participation, but this is not always the case. E.g. are lawyers being asked to disclose everyone they work with (i.e. their client list?), because, for example, they are seeking to protect brand owner interests online generally? What disclosure are they supposed to make if they have one or more clients whose interests they are seeking to safeguard, but who are not paying them to participate? Discussion: * Seems the suggestion from the IPC is to leave the language as is, but provide a definition of “representative”. * Question: Is the ethical concern regarding the disclosure or because of conflicting/mutually exclusive requirements? Answer: It is the mutually exclusive requirements. ICANN requires disclosure to participate but the Bar Association does not, thus possibly excluding lawyers from participating. * Seems that the client could have the option to agree to disclosure. The client agreeing would remove the ethical problem but they do not have to. If the client said no then the representative couldn’t participate, thus discriminating against them. * Don’t think the intent of this proposal is to create a barrier to participation. The problem we are trying to address is those individuals who do not disclose whom they represent. Could produce a two-tiered system of participation – some who disclose and some who don’t. Putting the decision to disclose on the client could be an appropriate way to resolve the conflict. * Could narrow the language to make the disclosure more equitable. Current proposed 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.’” * Could make it more specific that people have to cite why they cannot comply. Provide some context. Could we also ask them to reference the professional rule/obligation that prevents disclosure? * If the client doesn’t respond or says no, that puts the representative in the position of not being able to serve their client by participating. * Could disclose in general, but not with specific details. * Seems to be some agreement to see if the current language can be strengthened by adding 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) be more specific in the examples we provide. * Is it sufficient to say that they represent a non-GNSO client? But how would we know? Also, some attorneys are representing multiple clients and switching hats. * Comes back to the definition of “representative”. ACTION ITEM: SOI: Staff to draft revised language and provide to the TF on the list for review re: 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) more specific in the examples we provide. Consider whether there are other examples that may apply, such as the IETF. 3. Confirm whether the following language to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures provides sufficient flexibility to make updates to the SOI as deemed necessary: “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”. (see also public comments submitted: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qr…>) Comment from Susan: “b)I think we risk overburdening Council here if they have to start considering the SOI requirements for every activity. 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.” * Don’t think the intent is to overburden the Council, but to have baseline questions and those could be expanded if necessary depending on the situation. * Don’t think we need to make further changes. What is proposed doesn’t prevent the Council to put forward additional requirements. * Staff notes that there is agreement to confirm the language to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures. 4. Review updated version of Recommendations Report (see attached) and consider outstanding issues: * Will need to update the disclosure language once the group comes to agreement. a. SOI Samples Current language: “A number of use cases have been developed [to be completed following the public comment forum] by the TF that will serve as example / instructions for those completing the templates to provide the appropriate level of detail / information.” * No examples have been provided. Should staff make some suggestions or is this still to be provided by the TF. ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Susan Payne, IPC to provide some use case examples. Other TF members are encourage to do so as well. See the sample google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRibJK8a8FQ8Df9CCClWuH_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRi…>. b. Pilot * Had language about a pilot; instead we linked to a Google form for commenters to use to provide feedback, but there was limited participation. * Is this a suggestion for implementation – for a group to test it? * Revise this language to indicate that there may be a testing phase in implementation. ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Staff to revise the language referencing the pilot to indicate that testing may occur as part of implementation. 5. Confirm next steps * See action items above. * Schedule a meeting for 25 January. ACTION ITEM: Secretariat staff to schedule a meeting for 25 January at 1400 UTC.

1 0