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@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@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 09:31 *To: *"gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <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?pl... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXj...>).
*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@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.