February 2023 - GNSO-SOI-TF

ICANN76 Policy Outlook Report is now available for download!
by Julie Bisland Feb. 28, 2023

Feb. 28, 2023

Dear all, The ICANN76 Policy Outlook Report is now available: https://go.icann.org/outlook76 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/outlook76__;!!PtGJab4!-1mW_…> Thank you! Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda - GNSO SOI Task Force meeting on 1 March at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Feb. 28, 2023

Feb. 28, 2023

Dear All, For tomorrow’s meeting (Wednesday 1 March), we would like to suggest that we first consider the suggestion put forward by Manju (see hereunder). If there is not sufficient support for this approach, we’ll continue with the questions that were put forward on the list after the last call which would result in the following proposed agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Consider possible modification of exemption language whereby represented individual or entity information is shared only with WG leadership if exemption is invoked If no support for 2: 1. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC) 2. Possible SOI Pilot 3. Possible question to ICANN legal 1. Confirm next steps 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: Friday, 24 February 2023 at 10:43 To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju(a)nii.org.tw> Cc: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] [Ext] Re: Reminder - Please respond - TF follow up questions Thanks, Manju, for your feedback and the suggestion made. All, please consider whether this could be a potential path forward. If I understand correctly, Manju is suggesting that if the exemption is invoked, instead of sharing the name of the client or entity on whose behalf someone is participating publicly as part of the SOI, the information would be collected separately and provided to the leadership of the WG to ensure fair and equitable representation of interests. This could potentially look like something like this: (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, you must provide specific details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and must provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name as well as declare whether, to the best of your knowledge, that entity is actively participating or being represented in other GNSO SG/Cs/SO/ACs, for example “I represent a gTLD Registry client who is also actively participating in the RySG”, “I am representing a governmental entity, who is also actively participating in the GAC” or “I represent a largem brand holder in the entertainment sector who, to the best of my knowledge, is not actively participating or being represented in other ICANN groups”. If you have invoked this exemption you will be required to separately provide the name of the represented individual or entity to the GNSO Secretariat who will only disclose this information to the leadership of the activity for which you have completed this SOI. In line with the WG guidelines, WG leadership is responsible for assessing whether the activity has sufficiently broad representation as well as informing the Chartering organization should there be over-representation to the point of capture). Of course, this is just a first attempt to capture what such an approach could look like. Please consider this approach as well as the questions outlined further below and provide your feedback on the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju(a)nii.org.tw> Date: Friday, 24 February 2023 at 04:05 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder - Please respond - TF follow up questions Hi all, As suggested in the last call, I took my CCOICI liaison hat off for a bit and referred this question back to NCSG. The position of NCSG is clear: NCSG believes in transparency and is strongly against the exemption. One of the NCSG members who used to be on this TF stressed that failure to disclose conflict of interest issues while participating in policy development is one of the MS model’s biggest weaknesses. It was also suggested that some form of escrowed disclosure of clients (eg only the Chair of the Chartering WG would know the client names) could be implemented to ensure fair and equitable representation of interests on the working group. Best, Manju On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:56 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Please provide your feedback on the questions below as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. 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: Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 09:31 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] Please respond - TF follow up questions Hi All, Following up on yesterday’s conversation, here are some further details on the different suggestions with specific questions for the TF to provide your feedback on: 1. Position on exemption language: We’ve heard the views of the IPC, RySG and RrSG representatives in relation to the exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?p… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>). Question for the ISPCP, BC, NCSG/NCUC reps: Please share your groups view with the mailing list. Would you be in favor of keeping the exemption language as proposed in the google doc, or removing it (the part that starts with ‘If professional ethical obligations prevent you….’)? 1. Possible SOI pilot: During today’s SOI Task Force meeting, the staff support team suggested that before finalizing the report and recommendations, the Task Force could consider conducting a pilot in which it would ask the participants of one or two of the current PDPs (IDNs and Transfers) to complete the SOI as proposed by the SOI Task Force, including the latest exemption language. This may provide the Task Force with further insights into how the SOI would be filled out in practice and whether the exemption would be invoked by many of the participants. Although it may not address all the concerns expressed, the practical experience may provide further insights that could help move the deliberations of the TF forward. If there is support for this approach, we would like to suggest the following steps: 1. Request Manju in her capacity as CCOICI chair and liaison to the TF to communicate to the Council the remaining issue that the TF is aiming to resolve and the proposal to pilot the new SOI with the two ongoing PDPs to gather further information and insights that may help inform the TF’s deliberations. 2. If there is no objection from the Council for following this approach, staff support team to work with the Council liaisons to these PDPs to explain the pilot and request participation. As part of the pilot, respondents would also be asked to share their feedback on the new SOI as proposed. 3. TF to review the SOI entries and consider if/how the responses and feedback provided impact the TF’s view. 4. TF to finalize report for submission to CCOICI/GNSO Council. Question for the TF: Do you agree that conducting a pilot may be helpful in gathering further information that could help resolve the current stalemate on the exemption language? If not, do you have other suggestions for how to break the stalemate, or should the TF finalize its report and outline the different positions on this particular issue so that the CCOICI/Council can consider if/how to resolve it? 1. Possible question to ICANN Legal It was suggested during the meeting that input from ICANN legal may help further inform the discussion. The following question was put forward as a suggestion: “"Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" However, it was pointed out that this question may be overly broad if it would be expected to cover local laws in all countries across the world. Similarly, the IPC reps have expressed previously that one concern with this approach (informed consent) is that if consent is not be provided, it would effectively exclude someone from participating. Question to the TF: What input could ICANN legal provide that you expect would help inform the TF’s discussion on the exemption language? Please provide your feedback on these questions as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Julie and Marika _______________________________________________ GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list GNSO-SOI-TF(a)icann.org<mailto:GNSO-SOI-TF@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 01 March 2023
by Devan Reed Feb. 28, 2023

Feb. 28, 2023

**If you are unable to attend, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ** Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 01 March 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/z4HKDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5n8zmj4z <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5n8zmj4z__;!!PtGJab4!_K9_vJd…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

ICANN76 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download!
by Julie Bisland Feb. 24, 2023

Feb. 24, 2023

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN76 is now available for download at https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing. [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!4J…> Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Reminder - Please respond - TF follow up questions
by Marika Konings Feb. 24, 2023

Feb. 24, 2023

Please provide your feedback on the questions below as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, 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, 16 February 2023 at 09:31 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Please respond - TF follow up questions Hi All, Following up on yesterday’s conversation, here are some further details on the different suggestions with specific questions for the TF to provide your feedback on: 1. Position on exemption language: We’ve heard the views of the IPC, RySG and RrSG representatives in relation to the exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?p… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>). Question for the ISPCP, BC, NCSG/NCUC reps: Please share your groups view with the mailing list. Would you be in favor of keeping the exemption language as proposed in the google doc, or removing it (the part that starts with ‘If professional ethical obligations prevent you….’)? 1. Possible SOI pilot: During today’s SOI Task Force meeting, the staff support team suggested that before finalizing the report and recommendations, the Task Force could consider conducting a pilot in which it would ask the participants of one or two of the current PDPs (IDNs and Transfers) to complete the SOI as proposed by the SOI Task Force, including the latest exemption language. This may provide the Task Force with further insights into how the SOI would be filled out in practice and whether the exemption would be invoked by many of the participants. Although it may not address all the concerns expressed, the practical experience may provide further insights that could help move the deliberations of the TF forward. If there is support for this approach, we would like to suggest the following steps: 1. Request Manju in her capacity as CCOICI chair and liaison to the TF to communicate to the Council the remaining issue that the TF is aiming to resolve and the proposal to pilot the new SOI with the two ongoing PDPs to gather further information and insights that may help inform the TF’s deliberations. 2. If there is no objection from the Council for following this approach, staff support team to work with the Council liaisons to these PDPs to explain the pilot and request participation. As part of the pilot, respondents would also be asked to share their feedback on the new SOI as proposed. 3. TF to review the SOI entries and consider if/how the responses and feedback provided impact the TF’s view. 4. TF to finalize report for submission to CCOICI/GNSO Council. Question for the TF: Do you agree that conducting a pilot may be helpful in gathering further information that could help resolve the current stalemate on the exemption language? If not, do you have other suggestions for how to break the stalemate, or should the TF finalize its report and outline the different positions on this particular issue so that the CCOICI/Council can consider if/how to resolve it? 1. Possible question to ICANN Legal It was suggested during the meeting that input from ICANN legal may help further inform the discussion. The following question was put forward as a suggestion: “"Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" However, it was pointed out that this question may be overly broad if it would be expected to cover local laws in all countries across the world. Similarly, the IPC reps have expressed previously that one concern with this approach (informed consent) is that if consent is not be provided, it would effectively exclude someone from participating. Question to the TF: What input could ICANN legal provide that you expect would help inform the TF’s discussion on the exemption language? Please provide your feedback on these questions as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Julie and Marika

2 2

ICANN76 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Feb. 21, 2023

Feb. 21, 2023

Dear all, With ICANN76<https://meetings.icann.org/en/icann76> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. REGISTER NOW! DEADLINE TO REGISTER IS 08 MARCH 2023! * Sign into Your ICANN Account or create an account here [account.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/account.icann.org/login__;!!PtGJab4!5B3b…>. * Register by selecting the Meeting Registration tile. * Click on the Registration link. Before creating your schedule, please read this page carefully: https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation. If participating on-site, please read the Health and Safety page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/76healthandsafety>. CREATE YOUR MEETING SCHEDULE * Access the schedule here [icann76.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann76.sched.com/__;!!PtGJab4!5B3bwFsFR…>. The schedule shows up with blank radial buttons to the left of each session. Hover over the radial button and click “ADD TO MY SCHEDULE” or just click to add the checkmark. * Once you’ve selected all sessions, click the My Schedule link in the lower left corner or hover over your profile and select My Schedule. * Click the Phone icon * In the bottom section, “Export Calendar”, click the link next to “My Schedule”. When the .ics is exported, add it to the appropriate calendar. * Please remember, for security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. There will be no calendar invitations sent, as the meeting schedule allows you to download all sessions of interest to you, to your individual calendars Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior. * Visit the Participation Tools page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN Meeting sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting Virtual Participation How-To Guide for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN76 Meeting Schedule [icann76.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann76.sched.com/__;!!PtGJab4!5B3bwFsFR…> GNSO ICANN76 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/RAKBDQ> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/QgKBDQ> For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Please respond - TF follow up questions
by Marika Konings Feb. 16, 2023

Feb. 16, 2023

Hi All, Following up on yesterday’s conversation, here are some further details on the different suggestions with specific questions for the TF to provide your feedback on: 1. Position on exemption language: We’ve heard the views of the IPC, RySG and RrSG representatives in relation to the exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?p…) Question for the ISPCP, BC, NCSG/NCUC reps: Please share your groups view with the mailing list. Would you be in favor of keeping the exemption language as proposed in the google doc, or removing it (the part that starts with ‘If professional ethical obligations prevent you….’)? 1. Possible SOI pilot: During today’s SOI Task Force meeting, the staff support team suggested that before finalizing the report and recommendations, the Task Force could consider conducting a pilot in which it would ask the participants of one or two of the current PDPs (IDNs and Transfers) to complete the SOI as proposed by the SOI Task Force, including the latest exemption language. This may provide the Task Force with further insights into how the SOI would be filled out in practice and whether the exemption would be invoked by many of the participants. Although it may not address all the concerns expressed, the practical experience may provide further insights that could help move the deliberations of the TF forward. If there is support for this approach, we would like to suggest the following steps: 1. Request Manju in her capacity as CCOICI chair and liaison to the TF to communicate to the Council the remaining issue that the TF is aiming to resolve and the proposal to pilot the new SOI with the two ongoing PDPs to gather further information and insights that may help inform the TF’s deliberations. 2. If there is no objection from the Council for following this approach, staff support team to work with the Council liaisons to these PDPs to explain the pilot and request participation. As part of the pilot, respondents would also be asked to share their feedback on the new SOI as proposed. 3. TF to review the SOI entries and consider if/how the responses and feedback provided impact the TF’s view. 4. TF to finalize report for submission to CCOICI/GNSO Council. Question for the TF: Do you agree that conducting a pilot may be helpful in gathering further information that could help resolve the current stalemate on the exemption language? If not, do you have other suggestions for how to break the stalemate, or should the TF finalize its report and outline the different positions on this particular issue so that the CCOICI/Council can consider if/how to resolve it? 1. Possible question to ICANN Legal It was suggested during the meeting that input from ICANN legal may help further inform the discussion. The following question was put forward as a suggestion: “"Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" However, it was pointed out that this question may be overly broad if it would be expected to cover local laws in all countries across the world. Similarly, the IPC reps have expressed previously that one concern with this approach (informed consent) is that if consent is not be provided, it would effectively exclude someone from participating. Question to the TF: What input could ICANN legal provide that you expect would help inform the TF’s discussion on the exemption language? Please provide your feedback on these questions as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Julie and Marika

1 0

ICANN76 prep week scheduled is now published / How to Create your Prep Week Schedule
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

Dear all, The ICANN76 prep week scheduled is now published! Please take a moment to read the information below to help create your prep week schedule and add sessions to your calendar. For the prep week schedule, go here: https://icann76.sched.com/ [icann76.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann76.sched.com/__;!!PtGJab4!-WtbJjGY_…> * Click Sign up and enter your information (email address and create password) * Once you “Join Event”, the schedule shows up with blank radial buttons to the left of each session. Hover over the radial button and click “ADD TO MY SCHEDULE” (see screen shot below) or just click to add the checkmark. [cid:image001.png@01D94151.84E2E900] * Once you’ve selected all sessions, click the My Schedule link in the lower left corner or hover over your profile and select My Schedule. [cid:image002.png@01D94151.84E2E900] Or [cid:image003.png@01D94151.84E2E900] * Click the Phone icon [cid:image004.png@01D94151.84E2E900] * In the bottom section, “Export Calendar”, click the link next to “My Schedule”. When the .ics is exported, add it to the appropriate calendar. [cid:image005.png@01D94151.84E2E900] [cid:image006.png@01D94151.84E2E900] The ICANN76 Schedule<https://76.schedule.icann.org/> will be posted 17 February 2023.Please email questions to us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Post Call | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 15 February 2023
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Statement of Interest Task Force call held on Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/MwajDQ> (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

Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 01 March 2023
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

**If you are unable to attend, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ** Dear all, The next SOI Taskforce meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, 01 March 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/z4HKDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5n8zmj4z Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Statement of Interest Task Force
by ICANN Policy Calendar Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

Meeting: Statement of Interest Task Force Date/Time: Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes **Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> with your apology if unable to attend** 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 apologies and 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/z4HKDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5n8zmj4z

1 0

Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 15 February 2023 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 15 February 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 15 February at 14:00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: TF members to consult with their groups and: 1. Review the question for ICANN Legal and provide comments/suggestions: "Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" 2. Consider whether it would be helpful to run a trial with the two current PDPs and see if there are any issues/concerns; 3. In response to requests from staff, provide feedback from their group on the exemption language if they have not already done so. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Consider input provided on SOI exemption language and path forward See the input in the google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit%2…>. Discussion: * Staff made some updates following the last call. * James Bladel made suggestions on behalf of the RrSG. * Karen Day made suggestions on behalf of the RySG. * Suggestions are to remove the exemption language. * James: Surprised at the vigorous reaction from the registrars re: the necessity of naming the entity. Concerns about state actors or pseudo governments participating. Strongly believe that the exemption contradicts the purpose of the SOI. * Karen: The example from the last call – representing a large US-based entity in the entertainment industry: if you have four people who say that, how do you know they aren’t representing the same company. Also with the GAC, need to know the country. Finally, the example that we should be able to ask the client to disclose themselves since we aren’t asking them to disclose their whole client list. * Susan Payne, IPC: Our position has not changed – oppose the suggested change and can’t see where there is a compromise, so what happens next? * Next steps are to go back to the CCOICI to seek their guidance, then it could go to the Council. The Council can vote on recommendations that don’t have full consensus, but we aren’t there yet. But will also need to hear from the other groups represented on the TF – send out an email asking for positions to document them. Include these in the annex of the report. * James: Would it be possible to get guidance from ICANN legal to address the concerns around having this exemption – that is, how to address them without the exemption? Feedback is that this exemption calls into question of why we have the SOI – why the SOI has value. * Marika: Happy to take the question back to ICANN Legal but helpful if you (James) could frame the question. * Susan: Think it would be a minority to which this exemption would apply – don’t think we should be scrapping the SOI because of it. * Marika: Could we implement the SOI as a pilot and see if any are prevented from participating and why? * Berry: No matter what happens a pilot is almost a necessity. Going back to the basis for an SOI, if we go back to the history SOIs were provided under the DNSO and early GNSO because of transparency requirements in the Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures. With PDP 3.0, we have been trending to a representative model – the SOI in its current form was designed around the open (not representative) model. It is typically PDPs where the SOI has the biggest weight, but in a representative model wonder if it is as necessary, because in a representative model a participant is participating as a representative of the person’s group, not his or her company. * What is driving this as we move away from the open model and to a representative model, that’s why it is worth highlighting the interest – but maybe the answer is that we sunset the SOI and the group states who their participant represents. In this case it’s up to the individual to decide to take advantage of the exemption, and then we don’t know what we don’t know. * Karen: Two questions: 1) does staff know if there are enough efforts in the queue that we can run a pilot without upsetting things; 2) under a represented model we could eliminate the SOI if we let the group vet the participant, but if we have groups aligned they could pick representatives who represent the same interests and we would have no way of knowing – how does this address transparency as required in the Bylaws. * Marika: There are two ongoing PDPs (Transfers and IDNs) that could be used for a pilot; in a representative model it is the responsibility of the group to vet, but we don’t always use that model. * Karen: I think the question to ICANN Legal would be something like "Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" * Susan: There is a presumption that the model going forward will be representative, but that’s not what PDP 3.0 said – there were more than one model. The Transfer Policy Review wouldn’t have had to have been representative; in any case the Council can make the determination of what model is best. If we are moving to a representative model it’s even more important to have the SOI. This is all based on trust, but there is a bit more than that required. If it doesn’t hold up there is an escalation process that could result in exclusion from the process. * Manju: Noted that the NCSG rep has not been active – is this group okay for me to remove my liaison hat and provide the NCSG’s position? * Marika: Staff always welcomes more input. * Susan: On the face of it, it would be great to have the input from the NCSG, but it would be giving you (Manju) more work – also complicates your chairing of the CCOICI. * Karen: As long as the CCOICI is okay with you switching hats it would be great to have the input. ACTION ITEMS: TF members to consult with their groups and: 1. Review the question for ICANN Legal and provide comments/suggestions: "Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" 2. Consider whether it would be helpful to run a trial with the two current PDPs and see if there are any issues/concerns; 3. In response to requests from staff, provide feedback from their group on the exemption language if they have not already done so. 3. Outstanding items: SOI Samples * Still awaiting examples. 4. Confirm next steps 1. Get feedback on the Legal and pilot questions; 2. Go back to the TF asking for positions to be documented, include them in the annex of the report; 3. Send the report to the CCOICI and seek guidance; 4. Put the recommendations to the Council for a vote – Council can vote on recommendations (simple majority) that don’t have full consensus. 5. Next Meeting: Schedule the next meeting in two weeks on 01 March at 1400 UTC.

1 0

**ON IN 2 MINUTES** Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 15 February 2023
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

**ON IN 2 MINUTES** 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/452ua77e__;!!PtGJab4!8rni2gN…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 15 February 2023
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2023

Feb. 15, 2023

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/452ua77e__;!!PtGJab4!8rni2gN…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invite | Statement of Interest Task Force | Wednesday, 15 February 2023
by Devan Reed Feb. 14, 2023

Feb. 14, 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/452ua77e__;!!PtGJab4!8rni2gN…> Thank you, Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] [Ext] RE: Reminder: Re: For your review - updated SOI exemption language
by Marika Konings Feb. 14, 2023

Feb. 14, 2023

Thanks, Karen. All, please review the input provided by Karen as well as James in the google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit) Please come prepared to tomorrow’s meeting to consider the removal of the exemption language and/or further suggestions for how to address the concerns expressed. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. Consider input provided on SOI exemption language and path forward 3. Outstanding items: SOI Samples 4. Confirm next steps Best regards, Julie & Marika From: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com> Date: Monday, 13 February 2023 at 16:11 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: Re: For your review - updated SOI exemption language Dear all- As promised, I have taken the latest proposal discussed on our last TF call back to the RySG for feedback and to gage the support for such a compromise - knowing generally (large brand in the entertainment industry) but not specifically (Disney or Fox, Sony or Apple) whom is being represented. Below are three comments which we believe state the RySG position and received full support with no voices speaking against these positions: 1. Hypothetically, if you have a working group or a PDP and there are four participants in the group that each identify as representing a large brand in the entertainment industry, we will have no way of knowing if those four participants represent four different companies, or if they each represented the same company. This would be an easy way to exploit the loophole in the SOI disclosure requirements and stack the deck or kill any progress the client does not like, since so much of what we do is based on consensus. There is no wiggle room on the question of disclosure, for all the reasons the RySG provided to the Task Force previously. We need the transparency the ICANN bylaws require to protect the multistakeholder process and the policies that flow from it. 2. Yes, it is relevant to know, referring to the examples used, whether the 2 Governments represented in the room are USA and Iran, or two govts not represented in GAC, for instance. Yes, it is relevant to know, in a policymaking environment whether the brands being represented run a gTLD Registry or are participating in a process affecting the next round where they would apply for it. Same as knowing if, say, travel expenses for any participant in any group have their expenses paid by a given ICANN participant…And I think that is where the distinction needs to be paid. We would require full disclosure if there were a client that is specifically paying them to participate that working group on their behalf. 3. For example, I am an attorney and I have provided services for several different entities that participate in the ICANN world (registries, registrars, brands, etc.). I only need to disclose these entities if they are paying me specifically for the work I am doing in ICANN. To further illustrate the point, I have served as an expert witness in several IRPs so far. I do not have disclose them in my Council SOI (as an example) because those companies are not paying me specifically (or even generally) for that policy work, they are paying me for being an expert witness. However, if I am hired by Dot ACME WIDGETS to participate in the Registries SG, I must disclose that to the Registries. So, we are not telling the IPC that they have to name all of their clients, they only have to name the clients that are paying them to participate in the specific activity. And this by the way is NOT protected by the Attorney-Client privilege as many others have pointed out. Therefore, the RySG cannot support the language as currently proposed. While we feel there is no room for compromise on the issue of full transparency, we again, want to reiterate that we are in no way asking anyone to violate any professional or ethical obligations. We are only asking for each representative to obtain an informed consent from their client to disclose their identity in relation to a specific piece of ICANN work or in the absence of such consent, abstain from participation in respect of the ICANN bylaws and the multistakeholder process. Look forward to speaking with you on Wednesday, Karen ========================================== Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP Principal Legal Specialist SAS Institute Inc., SAS Campus Drive, Cary, NC 27513 (919) 531-6016 direct karen.day(a)sas.com<mailto:karen.day@sas.com> =========================================== From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:25 PM To: gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder: Re: For your review - updated SOI exemption language EXTERNAL Reminder – please review the updated exemption language and share your feedback / comments in the document and/or mailing list well ahead of the meeting so that there is an opportunity for others to review and consider. Thanks, Julie & 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: Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 02:17 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] For your review - updated SOI exemption language 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 [docs.google.com] [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>. 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<mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 18:41 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 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 [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>. 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] [nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?…>) * 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

Reminder: Re: For your review - updated SOI exemption language
by Marika Konings Feb. 13, 2023

Feb. 13, 2023

Reminder – please review the updated exemption language and share your feedback / comments in the document and/or mailing list well ahead of the meeting so that there is an opportunity for others to review and consider. Thanks, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 02:17 To: "gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] For your review - updated SOI exemption language 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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbX…>. 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.

2 1