Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 07 September 2022 at 13:00 UTC.  These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.

Kind regards,

Marika and Julie

Action Items:

1. TF members to consider whether to volunteer to lead the group.
2. Staff to look back at specific efforts such as the PDP 3.0, the GNSO review, or WS2 to see if there were other inputs on the SOIs.
3. Staff to set up a Google doc with the TF assignment questions and staff observations, as well as the text of the current SOI procedures to help capture comments.
4. Staff to schedule a meeting in two weeks and will look at 20:00 UTC as a possible rotating time with 13:00 UTC.

Notes:

1. Introductions (see https://community.icann.org/x/NgAiCw)

• Thank you for volunteering to join this effort.
• Interests in this topic from introductions:
  • New to ICANN and hope to bring some fresh eyes on the topic (Aimee Meacham).
  • Personal interest – SOI are of great use and they are a subject of some confusion with respect to their use and intent (Karen Day).
  • Personal interest – SOIs are a very important element to participation and think they are due for a refresh/update the process to ensure they are fit for purpose (James Bladel).
  • Find SOIs helpful (Susan Kawaguchi)
  • Find SOIs useful but there are some challenges with them – keeping them up to date and the level of information; developing a better understanding of what the expectation is.  Need a process for weeding out the old and out-of-date SOIs.

2. Leadership – any volunteers to chair this effort?

• Hoping that a TF member will volunteer to lead the effort.
• Leader would work with staff to prepare the agendas.

ACTION ITEM: TF members to consider whether to volunteer to lead the group.

3. TF Assignment – review TF assignment and determine next steps (see https://community.icann.org/x/NAAiCw)

• The CCOICI has oversight of this group; awaiting a volunteer to be the liaison between the CCOICI and the TF.
• There is a specific chapter in the GNSO Operating Procedures.
• Current SOI procedure came out of the 2008 improvements to replace the Declaration of Interest form.
• This topic was discussed as part of the PDP 3.0 effort; a number of people pointed out that the SOI procedure is something that could benefit from a review.  Decided to include the SOI review as part of the pilot for the Framework of Continuous Improvement.
• Note that having an interest is not a impediment to participating in the GNSO; the SOI requires related interests only to be stated.
• One question to consider: Who is responsible for ensuring updates and accuracy?  Right now it is a requirement of the owner of the SOI.
• Concerns raised about SOIs that aren’t being kept up to date.
• Observation that there has been a swift to a more representative model – so consider the question of how useful SOIs are in a representative model.
• Think they are even more relevant in the representative model tbh.  SGs and Cs use them too to understand the interests of the colleagues they may be appointing to represent them.
• SOIs are used in other parts of the community, so changes may impact other groups.

Questions to be considered by the TF:

1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be?
2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose?
3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those already included in the requirements?
4. Based on the responses to question 1) and 2), what updates, if any, would need to be made to the GNSO Operating Procedures?
5. Based on the responses to 4), are there any updates that need to be made to the SOI wiki page and template, also considering from a privacy perspective whether the current set up provides sufficient safeguards (only those that are logged into the wiki are able to view SOI information).

• As part of its deliberations, the TF should also consider how the SOI is used across the GNSO as well as outside of the GNSO as proposed changes could have a broader impact. The TF could also consider whether there is value in having different types of SOIs, for example, one that is specific to the GNSO and policy development, and others that may serve other purposes.
• However, how the SOI is used outside of the GNSO is not within scope for the TF, although it will help inform the potential broader impact any potential changes to the SOI may have.
• As part of its deliberations, the TF may also explore how SOIs or comparable approaches are used in other organizations to see if possible best practices can be identified and/or lessons learned.

Membership:

• a maximum of 2 representatives from each Constituency or Stakeholder Group1 and up to 2 alternates
• 1 Council Committee liaison (ex-officio)

Decision-making methodology: The Task Force should aim to make recommendations by full consensus.  Divergent views can be documented and recorded.

Timeline expectations:

Although the TF will set its own work plan and schedule, it is expected that the timeframe for completing this assignment may take between 9-12 months. Assuming public comment may be helpful.

Consultation expectations:

• As part of this process, the Task Force is expected to solicit input from the ICANN community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements at an early stage of the process.
• Also, if the TF recommends any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, these will need to go out for public comment before the GNSO Council can consider these for adoption.
• The CCOICI has been working on changes to the WG Self-Assessment that will involve changing the Operating Procedures – suggest combining these with changes to the SOI procedures into one public comment.

Discussion:

• Good starting point are the questions and the staff observations.  One question that we may need to consider first is how comfortable TF members are to undertake a top-bottom review or whether we want to just tweak the process.
• There is no restriction on what the TF can recommend, although recommendations do have to be approved by the Council.
• Maybe a starting point it might be helpful if we put the questions and the staff observations into a Google doc, starting with the original purpose and your views on what you think the current objective should be.
• Question: Is there any other input that isn’t captured in the task assignment? Answer: Staff can look back at the PDP 3.0 process and GNSO review to see if there is other input.
• Think about the outreach part of this effort and what would be helpful – a form could be developed? A survey? How to get the right kind of feedback.
• Could go through the current SOI and express our concerns with it.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Staff to look back at specific efforts such as the PDP 3.0, the GNSO review, or WS2 to see if there were other inputs on the SOIs.
2. Staff to set up a Google doc with the TF assignment questions and staff observations, as well as the text of the current SOI procedures to help capture comments.

4. Schedule and timing of future meetings – see current time zone spread https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20220131&p1=75&p2=179&p3=51&p4=136&p5=382&p6=196&p7=240 [timeanddate.com]

• Wide range of time zones: Very challenging to schedule meetings.  Consider how to accommodate preferences – rotate or rely more on the mailing list.
• Rotations could lose some people. 
• Might be helpful to focus on using Google docs and the mailing list.
• For groups that have multiple members could have one as primary and one as alternate.
• Could be more difficult if these are weekly meetings – better to have 2 meetings per month and focus on sharing thoughts on line.
• There are some time slots that are possible, such as early morning in the US or late evening in Europe.
• Consider also how the change to Daylight Saving Time in the US will affect meeting times.
• We use 20:00 in another group.  Is that any more palatable for the team here?

ACTION ITEM: Staff to schedule a meeting in two weeks and will look at 20:00 UTC as a possible rotating time with 13:00 UTC.