Reminder – please provide your input by Friday 1 April.

Thanks to the person who made a number of suggested edits to the google doc, but can you please identify yourself as the proposed edits show up as made by ‘anonymous’.

Thank you,

Julie & Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 11:29
To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>
Subject: For your review - Outreach Survey - deadline for input Friday 1 April

Dear All,

In follow up to yesterday’s meeting, the staff support team has converted the outreach letter into a survey. Please preview the survey at https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/kakajko1rvzr#page1 and share any comments or suggestions you may have by Friday 1 April at the latest. If no further input is received, we’ll aim to distribute the survey via the Community Digest in the course of next week with a 30 day response deadline.

Best regards,

Julie and Marika

From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Monday, 28 March 2022 at 23:04
To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 28 March 2022 20:00 UTC

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 28 March 2022 at 20:00 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, 28 March 2022 at 20:00 UTC

Action Items:

Proposed Outreach Letter:

1. TF members to review the google doc of the outreach letter/questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XWMzLILrfdjNE1jgUaOQ5Nc0f34GHdBS/edit [docs.google.com] and provide comments and suggestions.

2. Staff to turn the outreach inquiry into a survey preview with open-ended text boxes for SOI TF members to review.

TF Assignment questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com]

1. TF members to review the google doc of the TF Assignment questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com] and provide comments and suggestions.

2. Staff to draft a timeline for the assignment.

3. 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

2. Proposed outreach letter (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XWMzLILrfdjNE1jgUaOQ5Nc0f34GHdBS/edit [docs.google.com])

a. TF input & comments

• As part of the assignment the group has been asked to reach out to other groups who may use the SOI for their own processes or for GNSO groups in which they participate.
• Start out with some general information.

Discussion/Comments:

• This this is too broad -- think there are other reasons than financial and being affected. We might want to provide some specifics in the form of bullet points. Specifically this, “either directly in the sense that the person conducts business which could be affected by GNSO policy decisions or indirectly as a representative of a group that could be affected).   Wonder if there are other reasons other than financial. 
• Note that the text in parentheses above is directly pasted from the BGC report, but the group can make the questions more specific.  We’ll probably need to write out what this report is and provide a link to make clear where it comes from.
• Maybe when we start looking at the questions about how the SOI can be revised, such as with specific examples.  Specifically to get information on interests that might be related to a specific outcome.  Not sure how to translate that into questions for outreach. May be additional questions that need to be identified.
• For the outreach we are focusing on what we want the outreach responses to focus on.
• We are also asking how revising the SOI might impact their own groups.  Some use the SOI for their own purposes.  Particularly those who are not in the GNSO.
• One suggestion staff had was to turn this into a survey format.  Staff could do that and share with the group to review.
• We aren’t looking for formal SO/AC responses.
• Prefer the idea of this being a survey, but recommend that we leave some open-ended text boxes.
• On the timeline, not sure what our timeframe is.  Sooner is better.
• There is no set timeframe; it really depends on the time the group puts in and the progress made.
• Staff can set out a general timeline.
• Check to see if this is suitable for the Community Digest.
• Allow more time for the TF members to review.

b. Confirm next steps

ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the google doc of the outreach letter/questions and provide comments and suggestions.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to turn the outreach inquiry into a survey preview with open-ended text boxes for SOI TF members to review.

3. Continue consideration of TF Assignment questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com]) 

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?

• Created a placeholder for additional questions.
• Potential questions to be addressed:
  • If/how can a community member be compelled to disclose clients, especially in the case where there might be an NDA and/or client-attorney type of relationship? 
  • [TF to identify additional questions]
• May be ways around an NDA in the way the questions are presented; the TF would have to address that.
• Addressed the issue of two types of Statements of Interest, including research a short-lived option for a Declaration of Interest.  Ended up being very cumbersome, complex, and time-consuming so the requirement was eliminated from the final version of the GNSO Operating Procedures.
• Given the above history and the usefulness of having a trial run of processes, staff suggests that the SOI TF could consider recommending testing draft SOI procedures on a set of volunteers acting as WG members, and then seeing whether the responses are useful/expected.
• Would be good to have more information in an SOI on specific interests in a WG, such as tying it to charter questions.  What outcomes they are seeking.
• Something to think about is what the new environment looks like, and what are the current requirements and how do they need to be updated.

ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the google doc of the TF Assignment questions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit [docs.google.com] and provide comments and suggestions.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to draft a timeline for the assignment.

4. Confirm next steps & next meeting (11 April at 13.00 UTC)