Dear All, As discussed during our meeting earlier this week, the staff support team has taken a first stab at drafting an outreach letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XWMzLILrfdjNE1jgUaOQ5Nc0f34GHdBS/edit. Please review this draft and provide any comments and/or suggestions you may have by Thursday 24 March. Following your review and possible updates, we will also create a survey version to facilitate input of responses. In addition to obtaining community input, we can also reach out to our staff colleagues to better understand if/how SOIs are used in other ICANN communities to better understand what potential impact changes to the SOI might have on others as well as whether there are any experiences / best practices that might help inform the TF’s deliberations. We look forward to receiving your feedback, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, 14 March 2022 at 15:13 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 14 March 2022 1300 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting Monday, 14 March at 13:00 UTC Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a draft outreach letter for the TF members to review as a Google doc. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc for TF members to contribute to a list of questions to pose to ICANN Org Legal staff. Notes: 1. Welcome a. Volunteer(s) to lead the TF * Still looking for a volunteer to Chair the TF. * Please send any nominations to the list or respond on the list if there are objections to staff leading the TF. * Staff can run the meeting procedurally, although from a staff point of view it is preferable to have the community run the TF. * The group has suggested that it is acceptable for staff to lead the group with the understanding that the TF members will speak up if there are any concerns. 2. TF Outreach - “As part of this process, the Task Force is expected to solicit input from the ICANN community on the current use and experience with SOIs as well as suggestions for possible improvements at an early stage of the process”. a. TF to consider best way to solicit this input. Some of the possible approaches include, amongst others: public comment forum; request for input sent to relevant SO/AC/SG/Cs; webinar; survey * Example: Small Team on DNS abuse sent letters with questions requesting a direct response. * Could send inquiries asking groups how they use the SOI and any suggestions for changes. * What is the best way to get input and what are the questions to ask? What is the best way to get responses? * First step would target directed input from different communities w/in ICANN and then follow that with either a webinar or survey. * Also consider if there are other groups that use the SOI that aren’t part of the SOs and ACs. * SOI TF members should also represent their groups and could solicit input from their groups. * The ALAC uses the exact same version as the GNSO with slight differences. The SSAC and RSSAC also have SOIs but are more free form and specific to their groups. The ccNSO also has an SOI but it is tied to their participation on the Council. Developing an SOI similar to the GNSO. The GAC is the only group that doesn’t have an SOI. * Helpful to hear from these groups as to how they are using the SOIs and what affect might any changes to the SOI template have on them. * Question suggestion (poorly worded for sure): Should ICANN look at a requirement along the lines of legislation of to require disclosure of interests being represented in policy work at ICANN? * Should we look at how things are done at the backend – such as enforcement of the rules? Everything is on the table. * Could be helpful to include some of they issues the TF is considering, such as disclosure and confidentiality, as well as enforcement. How are these being handled in other groups. b. Confirm next steps * Staff could develop an outreach letter draft incorporating questions from the Google doc and asking how they use the SOI. * Once the draft is finalized, the TF should consider how much time is needed for responses and whether there should be a webinar as a follow on. ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a draft outreach letter for the TF members to review as a Google doc. 3. Review input received on assignment questions (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S...>) a. TF members to share input Question 1: Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report*, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be? Personal suggestions from James Bladel: * Haven’t received informal input due to timing with ICANN73. * The SOI continues to be relevant, but has not kept pace with an evolving Community. * For example, many individuals and groups now observe or participate in multiple Stakeholder Groups, as well as ICANN bodies outside the GNSO. * While a posted SOI is a “general purpose” declaration, it may be desirable to require participants to make context-specific declarations that are applicable within a working group or PDP. * Additionally, community participation standards should reflect that volunteers should not make representations on behalf of other interest groups in which they participate, aside from the one that “officially” sent them to do the work Registry perspective from Karen Day: * Karen Day put out an inquiry but only received one response. * Believe this is still relevant yes, but there is confusion as how to interpret the statement “where a person’s or company’s interest might be a material factor to such work”. Perhaps it could be asked whether there is any existing public position by such person or company and if so, to provide a link? * Feeling of confusion both receiving them and responding on the material factor. The phrasing is confusing. b. TF comments / questions Discussion: * Had something called a “Declaration of Intent” but didn’t last as it was repetitive and cumbersome. Maybe check on the objective of that and any linkage * Staff can research the origin and intent of the “material factor” language. * Most of the members in groups are the organizational representatives. At least for the GNSO ICANN Org staff do not have any control over the membership of groups. So, when someone is asked what groups they belong to, some may vote in one group but observe in another. It could get complicated, particularly for enforcement. How to carry this out and by whom. * When the SOI was originally developed there wasn’t as much cross participation – how should this be reflected? * This TF cannot override any rules/procedures that groups have for their membership. * Most of us wouldn’t be here if we weren’t representing our organizations, but are also speaking on our behalf. We are trying to establish that the community should have higher standards for transparency and consistency. Focus on the transparency and consistency and leave the membership and enforcement to the Stakeholder Groups and Constituency. * Staff does check if someone isn’t recognized as a member of a group to the extent it’s possible. * It seems individual stakeholder groups might enforce/review based certain pieces of information(lobbying piece Karen mentioned)? Question 2: Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information** to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose? Personal suggestions from James Bladel: * In addition to the response to Question #1 above, we should consider requiring paid consultants or legal advisors to disclose their client(s) when participating in working groups that create Consensus Policies or other obligations on Contracted Parties. Registry perspective from Karen Day: * Suggestion that #6 should be asked and answered in regard to the specific task/PDP/effort at hand. * For an extreme example, if there is a PDP On DNS Abuse, a Registry Representative could state that if there is a Consensus Policy requiring registries to do something this could add material costs to the operation of the registry (or something like that). b. TF comments / questions Discussion: * Support for paid consultants or legal advisors to disclose their clients. * How would we address non-disclosure agreements? Might find some middle ground – have people disclose based on what they are working on. Maybe not disclosing who the client is, but what are the client’s interests, such as the availability of closed generics in the next round. * Could staff consult with legal on confidentiality issues with disclosure. If we allow for confidentiality for lawyers then we’ll only see that level of participation. Need input on the specific question. * In Australia privilege applies when someone is seeking legal advice, but it doesn’t have to be. Could formulate a question for outreach on legal representation. * Note that associations have a mix of membership that might cross over groups so some transparency around their representation would be helpful. * Could be a more specific question in an SOI why they are specifically participating in this effort/WG. c. Confirm next steps * Maybe as a follow up we can formulate some questions on the list that the TF can ask ICANN Org Legal staff. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc for TF members to contribute to a list of questions to pose to ICANN Org Legal staff. 3. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Monday 28 March at 20.00 UTC)